Wash Post. again falsely claimed Bill Clinton accused Democrats of " 'Swift boat'-style piling-on"
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear, echoing earlier reports in the Post and other media outlets, stated that former President Bill Clinton accused Democratic "rivals" of his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, "of 'Swift boat'-style piling-on during the latest [Democratic presidential] debate." But Bill Clinton did not accuse Democrats of " 'Swift boat'-style piling-on"; rather, in a November 5 speech, he criticized Republican attacks on Democrats and the role the media play in contributing to such attacks.
A November 14 Washington Post article by staff writer Michael D. Shear on Republican presidential candidates' attacks on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) claimed, "With less than two months until voting begins, the Democratic front-runner [Hillary Clinton] has become a target for rivals in her own party as well, prompting her husband, the former president, to accuse them of 'Swift boat'-style piling-on during the latest debate." But, as Media Matters for America has documented, former President Bill Clinton did not accuse Democrats of " 'Swift boat'-style piling-on during the latest debate." Rather, in a November 5 speech, he criticized Republican attacks on Democrats and the role the media play in contributing to such attacks.
The Post made a similar false claim in a November 8 article by staff writer Dan Balz, which stated that Bill Clinton "compared the attacks on his wife by Democratic opponents [Sen. Barack] Obama [IL], former senator John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) to the television commercials aired against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential race and to GOP ads targeting then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) in 2002."
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 previously noted, several media outlets in addition to the Post 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 Balz's November 8 Post report:
Obama also criticized Bill Clinton's comments to a Las Vegas union crowd on Monday, when the former president compared the attacks on his wife by Democratic opponents Obama, former senator John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) to the television commercials aired against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential race and to GOP ads targeting then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) in 2002.
The former president's comments drew widespread, though private, reactions from strategists in rival campaigns, who argued that he had dramatically exaggerated the criticism his wife had received and had stretched credulity with his Swift-boat analogy. A senior Clinton aide was quoted as saying that the former president's remarks were not helpful to his wife's candidacy and that he was not speaking for the campaign.
Another official later tried to distance the campaign from the suggestion that officials were trying to distance the candidate from her husband.
From Shear's article in the November 14 edition of The Washington Post:
They mock her proposals, utter her name with a sneer and win standing ovations by ridiculing her ideas as un-American, even socialistic. She has become the one thing the Republican candidates for president can agree on.
Hillary Clinton.
Earlier this year, the senator from New York was the subject of an occasional laugh line from former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. Now, the trickle has become a torrent as the leading GOP candidates seek to one-up one another in a Clinton-bashing contest aimed at energizing their party faithful.
"The competition inside the GOP for who's the most anti-Hillary is going to pay dividends," said Greg Strimple, a GOP pollster and consultant who is not working with any presidential campaign. "Looking for that piece of anti-Hillary energy is what you're seeing right now."
The attacks have come during the GOP debates, on the stump, in television interviews, and in campaign commercials traditionally reserved for criticism of primary-season rivals.
In an ad unveiled yesterday, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) again criticizes Clinton for seeking $1 million for a Woodstock museum. An ad from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney airing now in New Hampshire slams her for having "not run a corner store" and adds: "She hasn't run a state. ... She has never run anything."
In the first five GOP debates, stretching from early May to late September, the candidates and the moderators mentioned Clinton's name eight times. During the first October debate, she came up 13 times. And at the Oct. 21 debate, she was the subject of conversation 29 times.
"You know, it's interesting, the most, I guess, wonderful reaction we've had in this entire room is when Hillary's name is mentioned," noted former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee that night. "It gets louder than an Aerosmith concert."
With less than two months until voting begins, the Democratic front-runner has become a target for rivals in her own party as well, prompting her husband, the former president, to accuse them of "Swift boat"-style piling-on during the latest debate.
What's piling-on is this obsessive drumbeat that MMFA is pounding with it's endless defense of this speech that nearly everyone who hears it, or reads it, comes away scratching their heads with different interpretations.
If it's so cut and dried that Bill was going after Republicans exclusively, is the entire media that stupid for viewing a Bill Clinton speech as having fuzzy and mixed messges? No.
"What's piling-on is this obsessive drumbeat that MMFA is pounding with it's endless defense of this speech[...]"
Once again, you're demonstrating that you simply don't understand how this website works. MMFA reacts to dishonest and/or misleading news stories. If those stories aren't written or broadcast, then there is nothing to react to. The reason that there is another MMFA article about Clinton's comments is because there was another dishonest news story written about it.
Hope that clears up your confusion about who exactly it is that's sounding the obsessive drumbeat.
There is nothing dishonest or misleading about any of these stories, which is exactly what I just said.
MMFA insists there is, and of course you rubberstamp everything here, but there isn't.
So your scolding once again is misdirected, and unnecessary, but you offer nothing else.
Every time Tommy posts we should reply with "Why are you here ?". I'll start.
Tommy, why are you here ?
You are WRONG. It IS dishonest to claim as a fact something you cannot show is true just because it is a better story IF it WERE true.
A better story? Where in heaven's name did that come from?
Read the rest of thread comments. There is nothing dishonest about it, it's called reality.
I don't think it's "Swift Boating" until someone makes it into a movie.
Little Jeffy Gannon ! I forgot all about him ! I see he's busy blogging on his self-promotion web site. I'm looking for the beefcake photos.
http://www.jeffgannon.com/
While I would not put myself in the same class as those who have already sacrificed for the mission in Iraq, I would be proud to serve my country and the cause of liberty to help democracy take root in the Middle East. To that end I have sent a letter to Sec. Rice making this simple offer: “Sack Jack Croddy and send Jeff Gannon; fire a coward and hire a patriot.”
Hey look, you can send a message to Talon News.
http://www.talonnews.com/news/contactus.shtml
No it ISNT its called claiming THEIR inferrence is a FACT. IT isnt that is dishonest. Whatever their motivation it is dishonest to take ONE WAY something can be interperted and claim it as fact.
Tommy, Happy Groundhog Day. I think it was made pretty clear yesterday that the comments were not directed at the other Dems. There were a handful of posters still "scratching their heads", they probably will still be doing so today.And they'll still be saying it's Bill Clinton's fault that they're confused.
HBL,
Clinton brings up the swiftboating and then clearly places it in proper context by saying "Why am I saying this?" as a lead-in to the illegal immigration question and how her Democratic opponents called her out on it for her waffling answer.......he was using the swiftboat reference as some comparison with the attacks on his wife from the others during the debate.
You view it differently, many of us disagree.
Tommy, apparently we do see it differently. here's what I see in the above item;
Clinton makes reference to several examples of the media and the Repubs focusing on trivia and BS (Gore's stiffness, swiftboaters BS, Cleland).
He then says he sees a return to this crap ("show of hands, who is for driver's licenses").
Who first asked Hillary this question about the drivers licenses?
If they were secure with their story Media Matters would move on (.org). Hence they have to repeat the lie often enough until they are secure it is the truth.
Once again Media Matters shows contempt for intelligence.
What is the lie, WC?
WC, if you look further on in this thread, one of your conservative comrades, AnotherAmerican, has come around to understand that MMFA is right, and the media is lying.
Maybe he can help you.
Good Morning Lefty,
I read AA's comments and do not believe he is exonerating MMFA of anything. This flack started when fellow democrats Obamma and Dodd thought Bill C was accusing them of "swiftboating" Hillary. The way MMFA continues to headline this is that it is the MSM's accusation.
No need to repeat what Tommy said above - he nailed it.
In other words, you're still confused and/or unable to answer. But thanks for semi-responding. :-)
No he didnt Tommy is wrong so are you. You just dont seem to be able to break away from the simplistic way of looking at this. You keep thinking EITHER it can be proven false or it is true. Or that the media thinking it MIGHT be true is enough for them to honestly claim it IS true. Thats not how it works. The media is making a claim as fact they cannot possibly substantiate.
How would you know. You have none. The media KEEPS making a claim they cannot possibly substantiate. WISHING a story were true is not a good enough reason to STATE its true.
Yes but you who disagree cannot SHOW you are right. There isnt any EVIDENCE this is the way it was meant. The media isnt saying it MIGHT be this way they are making the claim he WAS attacking or swiftboating Dems. MAYBE is not enough to make such claims it is dishonest.
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.
Ah Bill, talk about getting into "cutesy land"
Let's see, at the end of the last debate....oh you mean where Hill's DEMOCRATIC opponents went after her when she talked out of both sides of her mouth?
And if I remember correctly NONE of her opponents had a difficult time with the ILLEGAL immigration/Drivers License question.
So why oh why would Bill assume the Republicans would run an ad saying ALL Democrats?
Nah Bill, only ONE Democrat...that would be Hills.
So spin this anyway you'd like, Bill didn't fool me. He took a slap at Republicans that in reality was a thinly veiled slap at Hill's DEMOCRATIC opponents.
Oh and anyone in the media that dare to challenge Hills to actually give a straight answer.
Well said J,
Yet we're the one who are "misleading and dishonest" because we dare question the Clintons' motives and then an MMFA item.
We bad.....
Yet MMFA are the ones who are "piling on" because they dare question why the WaPo repeats the same BS in yet another article.
Their bad.
Yeah Tommy, I'm always amused at how this site, & some of it's lemmings seem to promote delusional analysis when it comes to the Hill & Bill Show ;-)
And they get rather bent out of shape when we figure out Billary Speak.
I am always amazed at how the conservative sheeple keep avoiding the simple facts in their irrational hatred of Hillary.
I am questioning you because you are running from simple FACTS. You cannot claim that YOUR interpretation is the only possible one nor the one that is FACT. None of you are even doing that. You keep talking about how YOU INTERPRET IT. That is an ASSUMPTION, that the media is claiming as FACT. They are assuming facts not in evidence and claiming as FACT something they cannot possibly substantiate it is dishonest.
"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."
Funny how you guys seem to ignore that part of the quote.
This is yet another "Al Gore invented the internet" redux.
Ignore it? When Spitzer proposed giving drivers licenses to illegals that means "you're for illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses".
What is unclear or incorrect about that?
Nerzog I covered that in my post.
I not only included that quote I said this:
And if I remember correctly NONE of her opponents had a difficult time with the ILLEGAL immigration/Drivers License question.
So why oh why would Bill assume the Republicans would run an ad saying ALL Democrats?
Nah Bill, only ONE Democrat...that would be Hills.
Jeter don't say Hills (you might get in trouble)
:P
Hehehe what can I say MHK? I like living dangerously ;-)
Actually I've noticed that a few die hard Dems here refer to her as "Hills", of course they probably do so out of affection. That of course is not my reason for doing so :-)
Just poking a little fun at cha and just to let you know that I didn't forget about our last conversation about Hills
I'm starting to think that you've got this un-healthy fixation on with Hills. Are you having dreams about her yet?
Sorry off topic, but what candidate do you support in the Republican crowd? We never really get to hear what candidates you actually support, just the ones you dislike.
Hey MHK,
Geez there were so many threads today, I almost forgot to re-check this one out till now.
Yeah I remember our chat about me get lambasted by Tex for referring to Hillary as "Hills", so I knew what you were getting at :-)
I just don't care for Hillary. And as much as I admire Bill, I really don't want the dynamic duo occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. again.
As far as Republican candidates go...I'm like a rudderless ship at the moment. None of them impress me much. I could live with Romney or McCain.
IF Hills wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote Republican for sure.
If Obama or long shot Biden wins...well then I'd consider either one.
Again you are making an INFERRENCE and acting like its fine for the media to claim your INFERRENCE is a FACT. Its not all right.
You might be able to INFER that. The media might be able to INFER that. It is a POSSIBLE interpretation. THAT isnt good enough for them to claim it as FACT. I thought I showed this yesterday when you said NO ONE SWIFTBOATED HILLARY. Now you MIGHT have meant none of the GOP candidates but I could INFER it as no one on the planet. Obviously THAT is not so. So would I be justfied in just claiming MY inferrence was what you MEANT? Then call you a liar because you claimed no one swiftboated Hillary?
Is it possible to just move the comments from Friday over here? It would save a lot of time :)
By the way, Tommy, where were you? Jeter2 for that matter.
Doug Reese
PS. I think I know the answer, Tommy
Perhaps you should take it up with the moderators, who keep revisiting it.
True.
Waiting for Bingo to show up with a cut and paste about Al French's affidavit.
He said "OR," dammit !
he clearly used the term "swift boat" to talk about what was done to kerry. he did not use the term about his wife's democratic opponents.
I am talking about the illegal immigration dustup, he was clearly going after the other Democrats who called out his wife for her dance on that question.
we're discussing this particular speech? you mentioned it twice in your first post. i'm pointing out that clinton did not use the term swift boat to apply to his wife's opponents. he was talking about what was done to kerry.
You will need to read his entire speech and the context of the swiftboat reference.
Why in the world would Bill Clinton give a speech about John Kerry for crying out loud? That makes no sense and there is no reason for it, except to use the swiftboat reference as a reason to falsely categorize any criticism of his wife, from Republicans and Democrats - who by the way are her primary rivals at the moment, not the Republicans.
he was clearly saying this is an "important election" and comparing this one to past elections. i don't see her opponents being criticized for those type tactics. if you do. we disagree.
I would imagine the strategy session immediately following the debate went something like this;
"Ok, we need to get out front with the arrows aimed at our Girl for her answer to Russert, and that damn Dodd and Edwards for embarassing her, but the frontrunner rarely criticizes her primary opponents but we want them to get the message that we will fight back, so Bill - we need you to turn this into a blanket swiftboat thing, turn it around and diffuse the criticism by implying it's unfair, give the Kerry and Gore examples, ya, that'll be good.....and of course mention Republicans too otherwise the media will know we mean only her Democratic opponents. Make it just vague enough so her primary rivals know who we mean, but the media is a little confused....Now GO"
Quite an imagination.
now i'm supposed to argue with your imagined converstions?
I said I imagine. If you imagine a different scenario then offer it up, please.
i didn't say you weren't imagining it. i did say i wouldn't waste my time on them.
I imagine you molest small furry animals and strangle puppies just for the fun of it and look forward to you defending the newspapers who print that as FACT.
One can always tell when you're spinning your wheels and can't defend your point when you resort to your mantra of "molestation of small furry animals" silliness.
Perhaps you should find a local carnival game where you can win a few of your own stuffed ones and act out your own little fantasy.....otherwise, don't stop, will ya? It's too funny.....
Yeah keep pretending that my point doesnt go to the heart of the matter. It is something that MIGHT be true just like your INTERPRETATION of what Clinton MEANT which you directly admit is nothing more than an interpretation. So why wouldnt you defend them printing it? It is exactly what you are doing here. Defending them printing something that MIGHT be true as if it WERE true. Then again maybe you are so stuck in your simplistic thought processes that you just cant get this concept. I pull this out to make the same point and perhaps you are just congenitally incapable of understanding that MIGHT be true is not the same thing AS true. Since everything is either in the white box or the black box, you cant grasp the concept that something MIGHT be true also means it might NOT be true. In that case since it MIGHT be true that you molest small furry animals and strangle puppies you SHOULD defend their right to print it as fact, just like right now you are defending them printing as FACT something that only MIGHT be true. The fact you think it IS true is irrelevant since even YOU admit you cannot SHOW its true.
Maybe Tommy overheard this meeting when he traveled forward in time yesterday to uncover the sinister "swift boat" defense plot being hatched by the Clinton campaign?
Do not mock our resident time-traveling imagineer!
Feel free to IMAGINE whatever you want. When you defend the media who uses THEIR imagination then prints it as FACT is where you go off the rails
No that is not clear it is just what you WANT to be true
If it's so cut and dried that Bill was going after Republicans exclusively, is the entire media that stupid for viewing a Bill Clinton speech as having fuzzy and mixed messges?
Judge for yourself, Tommy. Here's the last portion of Bill Clinton's speech, where he discussed the tactics he found distasteful. Read it carefully, Tommy - you'll see that everything he mentioned was an action taken by one or more REPUBLICANS against a DEMOCRAT.
So to answer your question, the media is either too stupid, to lazy, or to caught up in the right-wing agenda to present the facts as they exist. And any journalist who does not report the facts needs to find another line of work, IMHO.
With that being said, here's that end portion of Bill 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.
Most Americans still don't know the truth. The president was against the Homeland Security bill for eight and a half months. And [former White House senior adviser] Karl Rove told him they were going to lose the 2002 elections unless the American people were scared about terror again. So, they decided to be for a bill they'd opposed -- and they put a poison pill in it.
That bill was designed by the president to take the job rights away from 170,000 federal employees that had no access to secure information, no access to secure technology, no business being treated like CIA agents. Look, we need to be able to fire CIA agents without going through a long process in the public, right? ... But we don't need to treat secretaries at FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] that way. I mean, the whole thing was a scam.
So Max Cleland said, "I didn't go to Vietnam and leave one arm and two legs to come home and hold my job by stripping the job rights from 170,000 good, hard-working Americans. I won't do it. So they put an ad on comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
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.
Thank you for reprinting it, although I have no idea why?
Read the speech, Tommy. Then go back and read all your previous posts and you'll see that you completely misunderstood the speech.
Despite your directive, I understand the speech fine, and my posts stand......however I would suggest you check it out again, but that's up to you.
I maintain my position that once again, Tommy, you're dead wrong.
As usual.
What do we expect from Tommy-the-wingnut ? He summarized Clinton's speech as "a speech about John Kerry". >:-)
I guess when looking at a multi-paragraph text, he takes the first word that leaps out at him and *voila*, there's the subject !
Try leaving your simplistic black and white thinking for a second. The press is making a claim it cannot support. Assuming facts not in evidence. I dont see MMFA making the claim that it isnt possible Clinton meant Dems. What they are saying is the media is taking an INTERPRETATION and running with it as if it were FACT. That is a false claim. They are making a claim they cannot possibly substantiate based on what they WANT to be true.
Wash. Post: "...prompting her husband, the former president, to accuse them of Swift boat'-style piling-on during the latest debate."
Is the Post Lazy? Uninformed? Uninterested in facts? Biased? All of the above??
Whatever it is, saying Bill Clinton accused Democrats of "piling-on" is a flat-out falsehood not supported by the transcript of the speech.
Good catch by Media Matters. Unless these falsehoods are pointed out again and again, they will continue to be spread throughout the election cycle, just like they were in the past (the whole point of Bill Clinton's criticisms).
Adding here to note that the Post's Shear isn't saying he's interpreting or somehow reading between the lines of Bill Clinton's speech. He's actually asserting that Clinton accused Democrats, leaving the reader with the idea that he mentioned them during his critique, which he clearly didn't.
I think I'm finally starting to see the division on this item.Bill Clinton's remarks are about the medias focus on the trivial. on the "gotcha", on the boiling everything down to a Sean Hannity YES OR NO! answer, at the expense of the big picture.
Those who have had a gutful of this pettiness seem to get the point of BC's remarks, and MMFA's item.
Those who thrive on the trivia seem to be focusing on Hillary's failure to answer the question with a yes or no, and BC's use of the term "Swiftboat".
Good point, and, like Bill Clinton, I am one of those who has had enough of the sort of trivialities (wardrobes) and distractions (Swift Boating) that the media and Republicans provided in '00 and'04, and led to the damage George Bush has done.
Like many of us, Clinton can see more of the same (haircuts and cute raise-your-hand-type questions) happening already.
If someone offers their personal opinion that Clinton really was targeting Hillary's Democratic opponents, I don't agree at all with them, but if it's labelled "opinion" or "analysis" then that's fine with me.
But stating --as if it were an obvious fact-- that Clinton "accused Democrats" is an outright falsehood and clearly not supported by the transcript of the speech.
It seems to me that it is simply a matter of interpretation.
Yes, we know Bill did not directly accuse any Democrats of swift boating. The transcript makes that part clear.
What isn't clear is the comparison, using as one of his examples, "the swiftboat ads" in a defense of his wife's debate performance. His use of the phrase "Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again." is ambiguous and some, including Dodd and Obama, plus journalists and pundits feel Bill was also implicating the other candidates.
So there are different interpretations. I doubt that even if MMFA posts this again and again from now until the election, it will sway anyone one way or another. My particular feeling is that by harping on it, it really sets up a victim mentality by the Clinton's and their supporters.
I don't know if Bill has come out and further clarified his comments. If Bill were not implicating Hillary's opponents, I'd think he would have said so by now. MMFA's continued focus on this subject seems to me to have the exact opposite effect from which it is intended. Rather than clarify the situation, it simply keeps the poor performance of Hillary at the debate and Bill's rather partisan complaint in the forefront, bringing up two negative images of the Clinton's, again in another thread.
ps. the last sentence should say, ".. in YET another thread".
"interpretation"
The Post's Shear wasn't interpreting. Shear asserts, misleadingly, that Clinton accused Democrats as if it were a transcribed fact, which it plainly isn't. If Shear is offering an interpretation or opinion based on analysis, he should label it for readers as such.
"Yes, we know Bill did not directly accuse any Democrats of swift boating" (AA)
Hey Now ! AA, I think you've got it. (aside from the qualifying word "directly", which could be eliminated for clarity - unless you put it there for wiggle room). So, you understand the MMFA item, that the assertion that Clinton accused Democrats of "swift boating" is a lie.
Could you please explain it to the other conservative posters who don't seem to get that? Just because you speak the same language, and all. ;0)
Nobody is saying he did it directly, it is his implication, that is the point......he is far too smart for that.
Shear: "...[Hillary Clinton] has become a target for rivals in her own party as well, prompting her husband, the former president, to accuse them of 'Swift boat'-style piling-on during the latest debate."
I guess I missed all of those parts about "implying" and "indirectly" on my first read. My apologies, Tommy.From now on, I'll have all of my information routed through your imagination.
I am talking about the "conservative" posters that you were specifically referring too.......or was that my imagination?
So now you've given up on trying to interpret Bill Clinton's "implications" (via your imagination), and are changing your argument to--- none of the other conservative posters have said that BC directly accused the other Dems of Swift boating?
You're not a quitter, Tommy, I'll give you that.But does this mean you're joining AA in finally admitting that the media is lying, and MMFA is right?
I was answering you directly about the other conservative posters, didn't you want a direct answer? I guess not.
As for the media lying, No, this reporter was correct in her statement that Bill accused her party rivals of swift boat type piling on. I very much believe that was his implication.
Nobody is saying he did it directly, it is his implication, that is the point......he is far too smart for that.- tommy
My apologies again Tommy.By "he", you obviously meant "the other conservative posters".
How far are you going to go with this?
I cannot believe you are being this ridiculous, one more time, or can you not even remember your original post? The "he" is referencing Clinton. The "Nobody" is referencing the other conservative posters specificallyt and in direct reponse to your directive to AA where they are concerned.
Come on HBL, this is hardly worth arguing over.
I stand by my assertions, if you disagree, fine.
So you are standing by your claim that no one can reasonbly say Clinton directly attacked Democrats and it is an implication but that the media was RIGHT to print as FACT that he attacked Democrats. Right. I mean its ridiculous but I get it.
You previously admitted that was only an INTERPRETATION. Which by definition means it could have OTHER interpretations but you are NOW saying she was CORRECT to print HER interpretation AS IF IT WERE A FACT. That is among the most dishonest statements I have seen from you.
I agree with you HBL. Shear is being sloppy and in many ways negligent. If she had said, Clinton "implicated" or "compared" instead of using the term "accused", she would be on firmer footing.
Even though it looks to me like Bill was attempting a rebuttal at his wife's Democratic rivals, with a not so veiled comparison, he did not accuse the Dems of the swift-boating.
At many points those of us on either side of the political aisle have a problem with the media.
Part of the problem is that the term "swift boating" has broadened in general usage, because of overuse, to become synonymous with 'attacking" and "criticizing".
You're almost there, AA! You've got past the point of the nuances of the verbs "accusing" and "implying" or "comparing", you've cleared the adverb stretch with "directly" and "indirectly", it's the direct object of the sentence that is your next hurdle.
HBL,
Sorry to disappoint. While I agree that Shear is mistaken in saying Bill accused Hillary's rivals of swift boating, I am firmly convinced that Bill implied it.
That I think is where these columnists, pundits, posters, and candidates, (including Tommy,) make a good point that some of you refuse to admit.
Taken in context, it is clear to many of us that in Bill's speech, he was implicating the other Democratic candidates at that debate. If Bill wasn't, he made a big error because that only gave Hillary's opponents another newscycle to attack both him and by implication, her too. MMFA compounds the damage to Hillary by keeping this thread alive.
More fallout is the lots of talk about how upset Hillary gets when she is crossed. It is bad press for Hillary either way. Bill's comments look like he's trying to carry the fight for her. Again that doesn't make her look very presidential. Bill's comments while trying to help, only did the opposite.
You're not "convinced", that implies some sort of logical thought process. You are simply PREJUDICED, i.e., no grounds for your belief other than you wish it is so.
Atheist,
I think you fail to notice I have stated my position almost ad infinitum in the previous thread regarding Bill's statement. If you don't like my reasoning, fine with me.
If you picked up on the fact that I don't like Hillary, I congratulate you on stating the obvious.
:-)
I stand by my analysis. You are not "convinced", you are prejudiced.
AA is very easily convinced of things that he wants to be convinced of. For instance, if Rush says there's a difference between acting like you have Parkinson's symptoms (when nobody knows your're acting) and faking those symptoms, well that's all he needs. Actual analysis of that unbelievably stupid argument is simply unnecessary, the matter has been settled.
HBL,Sorry to disappoint (AA)
It's OK, Barn. As hard as I was rooting for you, my optimism is always tempered by your history. Just don't ever give up! ;0)
I love how AA says "Taken in context" when he pasted the "cutesy land" comment by itself a dozen times without ever acknowledging that the sentence directly after that referred to the moderator, or that he talked about what Republicans would do with the results of the question.
In context, right. The context that begins and ends with one sentence.
Even though it looks to me like Bill was attempting a rebuttal at his wife's Democratic rivals, with a not so veiled comparison, he did not accuse the Dems of the swift-boating.
First, in his critique, Clinton didn't accuse the Democrats of anything, not just swift-boating.
How Clinton's alleged criticisms of Democrats were "not so veiled", when he was talking about swift-boating (Republicans) and Gore's stiffness (media) is beyond me.
One explanation I have is that a lot of these "interpretations" about how Bill Clinton meant X despite saying only Y-- are mainly if not exclusively the result of the extremely negative preconceptions one already had of Bill and Hillary.
This is obvious, but you can see this in some of the comments (present company excluded) which basically end with something on the order of (paraphrasing here) 'Of course Clinton really meant Democrats---that's just the kind of weasly, conniving people they are'.
If you already have that opinion, it's going to color every single thing the Clintons do and say.
Correction: in the first paragraph of that post I was quoting the poster AA.
Darnit, for a minute I was impressed by your moment of clarity, never mind.
Another thing I forgot to address was your other comment:
"Part of the problem is that the term "swift boating" has broadened in general usage, because of overuse, to become synonymous with 'attacking" and "criticizing".
"Swift-boating" is not the same. Criticizing a candidate (or even attacking, if the situation demands) for their stated positions on issues is perfectly within bounds for all sides.
But "Swift-boating" is more in the realm of an unfair, possibly pre-planned, organized, ad hominem smear campaign based on falsehoods. As in the infamous SBVT crew, whose mission went way, way beyond simple "criticism" of John Kerry.
Dave,
I guess we'll go round and round. Some of us feel Bill implicated Hill's opponents with his reference to the end of the debate.
It seems to me that Bill's use of the term "swift-boating" has had the unintended effect of watering down the meaning. To many, Bill's imprimatur now includes Hillary's rivals attacking her (non)position during the debate.
"To many, Bill's imprimatur now includes Hillary's rivals"
It's anyone's right to decide for themselves whether Bill Clinton really meant one thing despite saying another. If it's labelled as an opinion.
It is not a fact, however, as some in the media like Shear seem to assert, to simply say he was addressing Hillary's Democratic opponents as if it were an unquestioned truth.
Regardless of one's interpretations, that assertion is not supported by the the actual words in Clinton's transcribed speech.
AA, you've been suckered again. Read the transcript of Bill Clinton's remarks. He never used the term "Swift-boating", he referred to the Swift boat ads, which is hard to do without using the words "swift boat".
The media twisted this to say that he used the term.To say that he (BC) is helping to water down the phrase is a little far-fetched.
Now, all of you conservative posters, try to rein in your imaginations a little, and join us on the good ol' terra firma here.
HBL,
Good point. I knew he said "swift boat ads". I should have said, "Bill's referencing of the "swift boat ads" or words to that effect.
Thanks for pointing it out.
ps. I'm still of the opinion that the whole reference to swift boats has been overdone and not just by the Clintons. Someone else posted somewhere about tagging "gate" at the end of a word similar to Watergate to reference a supposed coverup or scandal. They mentioned how that has become annoying not to mention trivialized. I think this is similar.
A valid criticism. I have for years cringed whenever the lazy media put gate at the end of any little tiff they wanted to sensationalize and dont want to see this trivialized in the same way. I mean used for the kind of thing done to McCain or Kerry or Cleland? Sure, but when it starts to be used for the kind of grandstanding that is pretty much what politics have been for decades its silly.
EXACTLY. It is an INTEPRETATION that the media is PRETENDING is a FACT.
"I don't know if Bill has come out and further clarified his comments. If Bill were not implicating Hillary's opponents, I'd think he would have said so by now."
I don't know about Bill, but The NYT article that you quoted yesterday had this reaction 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.
"MMFA's continued focus on this subject"
Which is relative to the media's continued focus, in this case, the WaPo.
Pete,
I make a distinction between someone in Hillary's campaign speaking on behalf of Bill and Bill saying it directly himself. But that is a minor point.
I do agree you and HBL and others here make a good point regarding Shear. I would classify his quote (I might have referred to Shear as a female earlier,) as misinformation.
Bill jokingly said that Hillary told him three things right before his appearance on the Late Show, "Don't make news, don't make news, and don't make news."
His speech, and the ****storm of interpretation that followed, have obviously made news. I can only guess that Bill does not want to pour gasoline on this by making news again.
Sure it can be interpreted either way. I personally dont care how it makes Hillary look. MMFA should continue to expose any of the media who has the temerity to pring their INTERPRETATION as a FACT.
So Dodd and Obama thought the statement was pushing it , but that is still ok? As long as Bill Clinton never is critical of Democrats. This story is so lost.
What Dodd and Obama THOUGT or even thought they could USE in their campaigns is irrelevant. It CANNOT be demonstrated to be so. It is an INFERRENCE not an attack so the media is irresponsible to CLAIM IT AS FACT.
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.
last time I looked that debate was for Democratic candidates? I did not see one Republican question Senator Clinton.
Sue, did you close your eyes when Russert was on camera?
So Russert is a Republican?
I always found this interesting.
KURTZ: Welcome to RELIABLE SOURCES, where today we turn our critical lens on the man behind "Meet the Press." I'm Howard Kurtz.Tim Russert was fresh out of law school when he signed on with Daniel Patrick Moynihan and later Mario Cuomo as a Democratic operative whose media skills were so effective it was said that opponents had been "Russerted."He made the career leap to NBC News in 1984, became Washington bureau chief four years later, and in 1991 became host of the network's struggling Sunday talk show. Russert not only took the program to the top of the ratings heap; he interviewed the likes of President Clinton, candidate George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, President Bush and every Democratic candidate for the White House this year, from Howard Dean to John Kerry.Now he's written a book, "Big Russ and Me," about his father's influence as he climbed the ladder from South Buffalo to Oval Office interviews.Tim Russert joins me now in Washington.Welcome.TIM RUSSERT, AUTHOR, "BIG RUSS AND ME": Thank you, Howard.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/23/rs.00.html
That is fascinating, it is completely irrelevant to anything being talked about however
I couldn't tell you, Sue. I can say, with some certainty, that Russert is not a Democratic candidate.
Of course he is not a candidate. My God are you that obtuse?
Sue, you seemed to imply that, since the question was raised at a democratic debate, any criticism of the question must have been directed at the other Dem. candidates,as it would have been impossible for anybody other than a Democratic candidate to have asked the question.
I was only trying to point out the flaw in your position; Tim Russert was also in the room. He asked the question. He is not one of the other Dem. contenders.
Talk about obtuse.
Sue & HBL, you both might enjoy this: Ronald Reagan campaigning for Hubert Humphrey in 1948:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M
until Nancy's stepdad took him aside & told him that he wouldn't get anywhere until he became a corporatist Republican.
People DO change over time. It appears to me that both Russert and hardball man have shifted over the years as they have made more & more money & have been in the D.C. bubble. Where people start out & what they become can sometimes be quite startling.
Hi Mary - I just heard that the other day on the radio, I think Tom hartman played it.Thanks for getting my point, that as much as some of the posters here like to bring up a job somebody had 20 or 30 years ago as an indication of their politics, I prefer to look at what they said yesterday.I'm crazy like that.
Yep. People change, and sometimes not for the better! I hope people listen to the utube audio of Reagan; it sounds like a speech by Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards today.
I heard it first on our local Portland station KPOJ; Thom's co-host Carl Wolfsohn found it. A real gem of a speech by Reagan, probably his best ever :)
Sometimes HBL you just have to take them by the hand and explain the ABC's to them as if they were children.
WOW, while being INCREDIBLY obtuse you are asking someone else if THEY are obtuse? Your capacity for self delusion is astonishing.
A Reagan Democrat to be exact, along with Jack Welch's other famous Reagan Democrat hires Chris Matthews and Brian Williams.
You need to read Russert's book.
Is it possible Russert could care less what party someone is affiliated in? Is it possible it is all about Russert?
Anything is possible but an objective viewing of the facts doesn't support your theory in the least.
Excellent reply.
Russert is MEDIA who is complicit in the type of disengenuous attacks Clinton was talking about. Try to keep up.
"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."
This is pathetic. His comments were obviously aimed at the moderators and the Republicans. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. This is just one more big lie being shoehorned into the conventional wisdom by the Corporate Media Whores. And, to the extent that Hillary's Democratic opponents are helping fan the flames...I understand it, but they'll probably regret it when we get stuck with another Troglodyte in the White House.
Nerzog,
The immediate criticism during the debate was from Democrats, they called Hillary out on her fuzzy flip-flopping answer and that is what started this entire thing. The Republicans had nothing to do with Dodd and Edwards. Bill was deflecting Hillary's Democratic critics of her unclear answer about the illegal immigration question by criticizing Republicans by name, but her primary rivals by implication......that is not hard to understand.
Politicians speak between the lines all the time, this is nothing new......especially for Bill and Hillary.
Looks like Spitzed pulled the plug on this plan - just un time for tomorrow nights debate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071114/pl_nm/immigration_newyork_dc_2
Drudge is reporting both Spitzer and Blitzer were offered free limo rides through Ft Marcy Park in Washington by the Clinton Campaign. (Sarcasim)
Wrong again, Spitzer and Blitzer were offered a free hunting trip with Dick Cheney.
Well at least one comes out of those ALIVE!
I saw that. And did you hear Spitzer's remarks, he was visibly p'od at having to do it.
Another imagined scenario would involve a little pressure from the Clinton campaign to take that issue off the table, "Do it now Governor!"
A less imaginative scenario would be Spitzer, under no one's influence but his own, not wanting to see his state plan used in a national election as a political baseball bat.
Very possible. But this issue will be very important in next year's election, and is hardly an excluxive NY state problem.
Both parties, who have longed looked the other way in enforcing our immigration laws, will be hopefully forced to address it seriously and answer to the people for their decades of neglect.
Pete - why are you bringing logic into a discussion of folly?
I think it's more fun to attach sinister motives and secret plots to the Clinton campaign.
Let's just keep ignoring the fact that due to the failure of our FEDERAL government individual states are being forced to come up with stop-gap measures to solve a problem that is impossible for them to take on. Let's also ignore the fact that the Republican party had more then enough power to push through immigration reform prior to the last elections in pretty much any form they wanted and failed to do so. I know it's way easier to criticize other folks that want to entertain ideas and come up with black and white solutions that don't work. But hey who am I to say?
Giving out drivers licenses does address some of the problems that people of NY are facing due to the influx... I know it doesn't sounds as nice as just saying your against illegal's and that you want them to be packed up and deported tomorrow. If only the problem was that simple.
The Republican party had their chance and did nothing. I think it's time for someone to come up with realistic solutions instead of sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Driver's license are just one possible idea, but of course when certain conservatives hear any solution that might give an illegal immigrant someone other then a one way ticket back to the home land steam comes out of their ears and all options are off the table.
MHK,
Your criticisms of the Republicans are valid. They should have done something back then.
I think putting up a fence is a good first step. Stop the leak then address what to do about the 12-20 million illegals. To try to the latter first will only encourage more illegals to smuggle themselves into our country.
Maybe it should also be pointed out that at least seven other states currently allow undocumented persons to obtain drivers' licenses:
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=234828
It ain't a new idea.
Thanks for today's talking point, WD40...Rush was pimping it today as well. Did you get it from him, or did you both get it from the same Hive Source?
Will the Limborg stupidity about a tragic suicide ever stop? Have you hiveminders no shame whatsoever? At long last have you no shame?
"Politicians speak between the lines all the time, this is nothing new......especially for Bill and Hillary."
I guess Dick Cheney isn't a politician. Who knew?
Funny how MMfA is engaging in misinformation when they show how Bush tied Iraq to 9/11 without ever saying it directly, but when the media takes an interpretation of Bill Clinton's words as a fact, then that's perfectly fine.
I wonder what the difference is between those two situations that would make Tommy flip-flop so violently?
Sure and THAT is what happened because YOU SAY SO. Ya got nothin but YOUR take on it. Those arent facts they are YOUR imagination and NOTHING more.
Hillary and Bill are fighting back, something John Kerry was late in doing. Repugs need to be hammered every single time and that is why Media Matters knocks another one out of the park with this article of repug disinformation.
Marker,
Tell that to those two GOP stalwarts, Obama and Dodd. :-)
Obama and Dodd aren't the source of the false claims. They probably didn't even hear or read BC's entire speech.
I'm actually disgusted with Obama. He seemed so promising, but he's turning out to be an annoying prima donna willing to sacrifice integrity in order to win. He'll probably continue to be pissy after HC wins the nomination, instead of gracefully offering his support to help ensure that we don't have a continuance of this insane Repooplikan thoecracy.
I'm a little peeved at Obama myself, taking shots at us sixties hippies the other day he seems to be pandering. I think however if he doesnt get the nomination we will see him be very gracious. I think he is a good man and is now feeling the pressure of being a candidate. Ever see Redford in the movie the Candidate? In the end I think he will do whats right and I believe that is something you can count on.
Solon,
My guess is that, barring a no-holds barred fight for the nomination, (which I'd like to see but don't think will happen,) Obama will be Hillary's VP candidate.
Not so sure. Any Dem would want the charisma, and energy Obama brings not to mention the best speech maker in the Democratic party. Will the Dems have the sack to put a black man on the same ticket with a woman? I dont know. It is just as likely she would go with Edwards. He has a good message and is white. If anyone ELSE gets the nomination besides Hillary and Obama they would certainly go with Barak.
I think Obama is too *proud* (not a good thing) to take on the VP role. And based on his behavior, I think he should not be considered. I think he would fight with HC. I would rather see Kucinich or Richardson as the VP pick.
Those possessing the least knowledge of what was most wrong with the "swift-boat" done to Kerry should have no problem understanding that any reference to "swift-boating" totally excludes the Democratic (and even the democratic) members of the species, for that party lacks the Corporate Media accomplice necessary to yield resonance for the lies. Despite having documented lies by every single one of the "swift-boat" crew, despite having debunked every aspect of their story early and often, there are still probably at least six posters on today's thread whose credulity allows them somehow to recognize the term "swift-boat" as derogatory, but to blame Kerry for the mess that liars and the Media created.
Marker, you have fairly defined the situation: the Repugnants are lying again, the Media has set up the echo chamber again, and some (such as A.A.) are trying to use innocent Dems as human shields against the destruction that were there a God, would surely rain down upon them.
Nice rant. Thanks for the plug. :-)
Any time! :)
This is simple. The media is presenting SPIN as FACT. It is dishonest. There is no way out of that simple FACT.