NPR's Liasson cropped quote to suggest Pres. Clinton accused Democrats of "Republican-style, Swift-boat attack" on Hillary
On the November 28 edition of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, during a report on former President Bill Clinton campaigning on behalf of his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), national political correspondent Mara Liasson asserted that "other Democratic candidates were furious that [Bill] Clinton seemed to be accusing them of a Republican-style, Swift-boat attack on Hillary" during the October 30 Democratic presidential debate, moderated by NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert. To support her assertion, Liasson played an excerpt of President Clinton's November 5 speech to the American Postal Workers Union. But Liasson cut out the part of Clinton's statement in which he indicates whom he was accusing -- Republicans and the media, not the "other Democratic candidates."
Specifically, Liasson played a clip of President Clinton saying:
PRESIDENT CLINTON: We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters, 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 in Georgia -- a man that left half his body in Vietnam. 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.
But Liasson left out the rest of his statement, in which Clinton said: " '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.' " The part Liasson edited out makes clear that Clinton was referring to Russert's conduct during the debate (in which, as Media Matters for America noted, at least two of his questions contained actual falsehoods) -- not the Democrats' criticism of Hillary Clinton -- and the way in which, Clinton said, it opened the door to Republican attacks. As Media Matters for America previously noted, several media outlets falsely reported that Clinton had criticized Democratic presidential candidates for "swift-boating" his wife following her response to a question at the October 30 debate from Russert about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. In a November 7 article, The New York Times reported: "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."
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.
[...]
PRESIDENT CLINTON: 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.
From the November 28 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
LIASSON: And there are other potential pitfalls. One of them was on full display recently when Bill Clinton, unprompted, injected himself into the battle between his wife and her Democratic rivals after Senator Clinton's rocky performance in the Philadelphia debate. Here he is, at a solo appearance, in Las Vegas.
PRESIDENT CLINTON [audio clip]: We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters, when that scandalous Swift boat ad was run against Senator Kerry, when there was an ad that defeated Max Cleland in Georgia -- a man that left half his body in Vietnam.
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.
LIASSON: The other Democratic candidates were furious that Bill Clinton seemed to be accusing them of a Republican-style, Swift-boat attack on Hillary. Privately, Senator Clinton's aides said her husband's off-message comments were not helpful, since the campaign had already abandoned its initial strategy of portraying Hillary as the victim of piling-on by her male rivals.
I think you mean "Fox News's Liasson cropped quote on NPR to ... " Seems as though Tomlinson (no, not the football player) is having the desired effect on public broadcasting.
Unhipcat, the best part is she's playing the part of the "liberal" on Fox.
LIASSON: " Privately, Senator Clinton's aides said her husband's off-message comments were not helpful, since the campaign had already abandoned its initial strategy of portraying Hillary as the victim of piling-on by her male rivals."
Privately? Liasson dropped that in pretty casually.A dig at Bill, and a matter-of-fact mention of a victim strategy. Pretty slick.
The corporate/ repiglican media are the most dishonest , lying, manipulative, pigs this country has ever seen. They should be charged, tried, and convicted of purposeful, criminal, fraud committed against the American people. They are just as responsible for the destruction of our once great country as is their fuhrer who represents all the corporate interests: Bush. They do these dishonest acts consciously and with purpose. They have an agenda and that agenda is to get any repiglican elected or installed no matter what it takes. All the while the 'liberal' bloggers, various magazines, and websites like Salon, the Huffington Post, etc pretend that this corporate/ repiglican agenda in not happening. As a result they do nothing to expose it. Why should evil baffoons like Miss Chris Matthews, for example, be allowed to do what he does on his Propaganda Ball show ? Why should this be allowed ? Why are evil buffoons like him permitted to make up lies upon lies and say these lies enough to actually convince some people that they are true ? Why is Russert allowed to lie ? Why is Miss Brian Williams allowed to lie in order to benefit the repiglican/ corporate agenda ? Why are these multimillionaire 'journalists' paid their millions to propagandize for their Corporations while our teachers, the teachers of our kids for god's sake, make an average of $30,000 a year ? This once great country of ours is screwed because of these evil buffoons ..........
Be very, very careful, Stormskies!
You do recall that Bungle was monitoring our telephone calls at least* six months prior to 9-11? Now his web/blog monitoring is in full effect, under the somewhat valid theory that these are words shipped directly to the public domain. There is now a lot of space at Guantanamo, due to the releases of many of those deemed for four or five years to be "the most evil men on Earth" under pressure from "allies". (Too bad there is no one speaking for US, eh?)
*Three years ago, I noted that Cheney had spent the first week of December, 2000, and had enlisted Papa Bungle, working with friends at NSA to prepare for launch of that monitoring; and actually executed that launch the day prior to inauguration. IHT, Telegraph both had articles - too bad the US press never touched this, say mid-2004?
I'm a pretty vehement defender of free speech, but I hear you, man!
The real problem is that people are, by and large, too gullible to realize what's going on. I don't know if we've gotten dumber as a people or the lie-machine has gotten better, but either way - the country's in trouble.
These guys should be off the air simply because people shouldn't watch/read/listen to journalists, analysts and comentators who have no credability. Be we are far too lazy (actually and intellectually) as a country for that to happen.
"......not the Democrats' criticism of Hillary Clinton -- and the way in which, Clinton said, it opened the door to Republican attacks."
Now MMFA is saying that Bill said the questioning of Hillary's flip flop during this debate by her Democratic opponents "opened the door to Republican attacks"? He did? So now it's off limits for Hillary's rivals to criticize her because it gives ammunition to Republicans?
If Bill is saying that to immunize her, that is amazing........and if MMFA agrees with that, or is interpreting it that way, that is also pretty stunning.
OK, maybe I am reading MMFA wrong here, can somebody clarify this statement and/or it's context, or is it just me??
Clinton was referring to Russert's conduct during the debate (in which, as Media Matters for America noted, at least two of his questions contained actual falsehoods) -- -- and the way in which, Clinton said, it opened the door to Republican attacks.
Tommy, you edited out the wrong part. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Is MMFA saying that Clinton said that? Because it is a little confusing......but you may be right.
or is it just me??
It's just you.
It is a complex set of words Tommy. As I read it. Russarts conduct opened the door to Republican attacks. These attacks did not come as a result of Hillary's co-campaigners statements nor from Bill's stataement. There have been attempts to bring the democratic candidates into the we hate Hillary population, these attempts will continue
The general strategy by the corporate media, is to try to expand the WHH population by any means. Over estimating the size of this population is another continuing tactic.
Russert's conduct? All he did was ask a simple and relevant question. Clarification and a direct answer from Hillary was what was missing.
If this is about driver's licenses...
Yes, it was a simple question, but relevancy is, at the very least, questionable.
Driver's licenses are issued by the states. It's not a federal function, and thus, not a presidential issue. Even a Democratic president wouldn't be crazy enough to propose national legislation that takes DMV functions away from the states.
If Russert wants to hear about illegal immigration from the candidates, I'd rather he put them on the spot with immigration issues that can and will be directly affected by the president's policy decisions.
The context of the question was not about federalizing anything, it was merely to get the candidate's opinion. If Hillary thought it was none of her business, then let her answer as such. To flip flop and then say the question was out of bounds is ridiculous.
To get the candidate's opinion on something that they will have no control over when elected president, making it a stupid question to include in a presidential debate when there are many other aspects of illegal immigration on the federal level that our next president will be coping which are much more worthy of being asked about.
I agree with you on Hillary's response. I couldn't make sense of it.
I agree with you that the validity of the question may or may not be as relevant as another would have been on the same topic. But to use that as an excuse for a poor answer, after the fact, is misplaced, at best.
Well there you and MMFA part company. Russsert's performance has been noted here and elsewhere as being bogus during that debate.
Apparently so. If asking a direct question and expecting a direct answer is "bogus", then we disagree.
And I'm sure you've felt that way ever since you stopped beating your wife, Tommy. ;0)
So asking a presidential candidate their opinion on illegal immigration has the same relevance and honesty as asking whether they beat their spouse? If you say so........... :)
To quote you, Tommy;
'If asking a direct question and expecting a direct answer is "bogus", then we disagree'
"Are you still beating your wife" falls into that unqualified category of direct question.
HBL, If you're comparing the two questions as being equally valid - one being a major topical issue, while the other is a ridiculous out-of-left-field question to just be inflammatory, well, try it on someone else......it's not worth arguing over.
Of course I'm not saying that the questions are equally valid, only that they're identical by your standards of a "direct question". I was only being objective, you're getting emotional.
tommy see's and hear's what he wants too because he is a repiglcian. and that's what repiglicans do in order to shield themselves from the actual truth of anything. it is much easier for their own survival to continue to wrap themselves in delusions considered to be reality just like their fuhrer bush does. that's exactly why they are so dangerous to this once great country called America.
I would imagine another delusional symptom would be to deny a political parties actual spelling and twist it into a barnyard animal slur instead.......but I'm just sayin'
I speak entirely for myself - an habitual name-caller (Repugnants, in my case) - and Stormskies is not implicated nor obligated by my words.
The name-calling conveys precisely the disrespect I feel toward the dishonor done to a once-worthy political movement, Republican and/or Conservative, by the pigs and thugs currently exploiting those names. A fore-runner, perhaps, to eventual imprisonment of most of those pigs and thugs, hopefully for the entirety of their lives, to presage their presence in Hell for all eternity.
Hmmm? Rethuglicans. Has a decent ring to it.
So does Democraps, but I don't see the need to use it to make a point.
Lighten up. I was goofin' around.
As was I, Round.........
Understood. Carry on.
Hey, if by any stretch of even the infamous Tommy imagination and projection, you can tailor that to anything meaningful, please - I'll buy that label. However, the problem remains that only - ONLY - the Repugnants are truly Repugnant, and the primary failing of the Democrats is their unwillingness to invoke law and imprison about 50,000 of that repulsive group, the Repugnants. Start with every Repugnant Federal official, elected or appointed since 2000; impeach where necessary to allow indictment and imprisonment; and move on from there to the illegal Governor and his staff in Alabama, and through the remaining 49 states. Then we could have a chance of restoring civility in politics.
Good thing it appears to be relegated to anonymous posters on the internet.
I wouldn't want to see Democratic candidates stooping even lower than the Republicans or the "liberal" media.
Democrat says "We need to tax corporations and help out the working class."
"Liberal Media" reports: "We need to tax [...] the working class."