Jeff Gerth appears in trailer for anti-Clinton film by Republican activist Bossie and is listed among cast
SUMMARY: Jeff Gerth appears in the recently released trailer for Hillary: The Movie, a "full-length feature documentary" about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) that "is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget," according to the film's website. In the trailer, Gerth asserts that Clinton is "a person who's struggling herself with figuring out who she is, or more importantly, how she wants to present herself to the American public."
Former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth, co-author of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co., June 2007), appears in the recently released trailer for Hillary: The Movie, a "full-length feature documentary" about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) that "is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget," according to the film's website. The website also claims, "If you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here!" Citizens United president David Bossie, a Republican activist and discredited former congressional staffer, produced the film. In the trailer, Gerth asserts that Clinton is "a person who's struggling herself with figuring out who she is, or more importantly, how she wants to present herself to the American public." Gerth is also listed on the website as a member of the film's "cast to end all casts," although he is not included on the website page labeled "Cast."
It is not clear from the trailer whether Gerth is being interviewed for the film or whether his appearance is a pre-existing clip. However, the trailer also features a video clip from Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) November 26 interview on ABC's Nightline, and Obama is not named among the film's "cast to end all casts" or on the page labeled "Cast," suggesting that those lists are limited to people who were interviewed for the film. Further, a Google search and a review of the Nexis news database for Gerth's quote yielded no results.
As Media Matters for America documented, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote in his January 20 column that "Former Clinton Adviser" Dick Morris is "asking for a contribution between $25 and $100 or more to finance a critical film documentary of Sen. Hillary Clinton." According to Novak, Morris wrote in a mailing sent out by The Presidential Coalition, a group run by Bossie: "If you liked how the Swift Boat Veterans turned the tide against John Kerry, you understand how a top Clinton aide can turn the tables and stop a Clinton-style liberal from becoming the next president of the United States." A February 17 Gannett News Service article reported that Morris and Bossie "are trying to raise $3.5 million to produce a movie critical of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, aiming its release for October or November -- just ahead of the 2008 presidential caucuses and primaries." In a March 23 blog post, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that "Clinton apostate Dick Morris appears to have scaled back his involvement in 'Hillary, the Movie,' which had earlier been described as a collaboration between him and David Bossie, the longtime Clinton foe who runs Citizens United." In an email to Smith reported in an update to the post, Morris wrote: "I'll certainly appear in for a segment and wish the project well, but I had to pull out as the producer."
Conservative media figures appearing on the trailer criticizing Clinton include:
- Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley, who claims that Clinton "makes herself sound like she has diplomatic experience, like she has managerial experience, as if she has policy development experience. She doesn't have any of those things." Blankley also asserts, "Well, I think it's worth remembering, after her health-care fiasco, the Clinton team put it aside."
- Novak, who claims that Clinton "does not answer questions straight out."
- Republican strategist and author of The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton (Regnery, May 2007) Bay Buchanan, who asserts: "She's driven by the power. She's driven to get the power. That is the driving force in her life."
- Conservative radio host Mark Levin, who says, "She is steeped in controversy, steeped in sleaze, that's why they don't want us to look at her record." He also claims that Clinton "scares the hell out of me."
- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who claims, "I mean, certainly, you have to ask whether or not she's learned a lot from that experience. It was a failure. She knows it was a failure. It was a very embarrassing failure for her."
- Fox News contributor and Dick Morris, who claims, "She's deceitful. She'll make up any story, lie about anything, as long as it serves her purpose of the moment, and the American people are going to catch on to it." He also describes Clinton as "[r]uthless, vindictive ... ideological, [and] intolerant."
- Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, who purports to offer descriptions of Clinton, says: "Venal, sneaky ... liar is a good one."
Each of the above is listed as a member of the film's "cast to end all casts," listed on the page labeled "Cast," or both.
Yikes! With a rogues gallery of detractors like that, I could stop worrying and learn to love Hillary.
OK, I'm exaggerating when I say "love"..
I can see it now, she ever gets elected these rabid rightwingers will stop at nothing to destroy her and America.
The question *I* have, is, "Would those rabid right-wingers work less hard to destroy any worthy Dem elected?"
The answer I keep coming up with, is, "NO! They will attack until they destroy (or go extinct themselves) every vestige of decency or humanity in this and every other nation."
Well, you might be a little dramatic, but considering the incredible amount of Bush hatred out there as well, I think it's a safe bet that polarizing political hatred has permeated both parties.
There is some Bush hatred out there. I won't argue that point.
But the polarization is something the Republican party has brought on themselves.
They're the ones who've framed the national debate as black or white, with us or against us, patriot or traitor.
When we pulled together as a nation, the administration demanded fealty to their quest to topple the regime in Iraq at all cost.
They are responsible for dividing our house. And you know what Proverbs says about that.
Worrier,
You bring up good points, and nobody can deny how divisive this Iraq war is - but there is plenty of very principled opposition to the war from many sides of the political spectrum.
But to lay all the blame on one side when the entrenched haters have framed it on both sides, is unfair......there is plenty of blame to go around, one-sided bombthrowers don't thrive very well alone.
I do have to say though, that Bush, shortly after 9/11, held extremely high poll numbers in this country. We were behind him in that time of national tragedy, and were all for going after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
That being said, I think the Iraq war was a very divisive issue for this country, but it's more the way the Bush Administration handled said war, and lied to get us into this war, that is the divisive issue.I read an article somewhere about how certain conservative figures today exhibit classic signs of paranoia, including Bush, Rush, and a few others. They see ambiguity as a failure, which may explain why Bush ignored the reports that Iraq did not have WMDs.
Tommy:
Bush hatred is not the topic of this thread. But as usual, you can't wait to go to the whiny "But they do it too" line. I think most reasonable people would have to agree that Clinton hatred goes beyond the pale. As far as I know, nobody has pushed for the release of a rapist because of the victim's ties to Bush.
Sorry, but Bush hatred is the topic of nearly every thread. Turn away from the reality of divisive and polarizing politics from your side as much as you want, but it's still there nonetheless.
You call it "hatred" because it makes it sound like such a thing can exist by itself. Bush is a fool who is ruining our country, and if you hold a low opinion of him or even dislike him to the point of "hating" him...there are plenty of good reasons.
WHO IS JEFF GERTH?
He's a reporter, who worked for years at the New York Times. He's a journalist, who cultivated the reputation of being objective and ethical, which would include full disclosure of his political biases were he to offer "opinion" instead of facts.
The Rightwing ASSURE us that reporters are LIBERAL, the New York Times is LIBERAL SQUARED, and the Liberal Media is rampant in the land, freezing out ANY Conservative thought.
Yet, Gerth was instrumental in forwarding ... even ADVANCING ... the non-scandals of the 1990's, and his later-proven-WRONG "ground-breaking" reporting on Whitewater was the genesis of a flood of speculations and smears thoughout the MEDIA.
MMFA doesn't make a big deal about Gerth's participation in this obviously SMEAR film, but his presence in the cast removes all doubt that the Rightwing's whines, cries, and sobs about that damn "LIBERAL MEDIA" were a complete fabrication. As they whined about the unfairness of it all, THEIR OWN MINION was laboring away at the NEW YORK TIMES, spreading smears and doing the bidding of the Rightwing ... masquerading as a "reporter".
The Rightwing takeover of the Media has been in place nearly TWO DECADES, and their "moles" in the Mainstream Media have spanned (and been exposed) from Gannon and Armstrong Williams to Gerth and Matthews and Russert.
MMFA stays very busy documenting the rampant rightwing partisan bias Americans are exposed to every day by the so-called "Mainstream Media", which has now been entirely co-opted by the RNC ... and this says nothing about the AM radio dial which is unapologetically a Rightwing monopoly.
So, GERTH is a Rightwing tool, and HAS BEEN for decades, but LAST decade, he HID his affiliations and pretended to be a "reporter" in order to FOOL AS MANY PEOPLE AS HE COULD.
The Rightwing treat the American People like fools and idiots. Let's disappoint them from now on, shall we?
Gerth is a clone of Judith Miller who now works for a conservative think tank. The NYTimes needs to supervise its reporters the way Ben Bradlee did during Watergate, no matter how experienced they are. If they had vetted Gerth's sources, we would never had the Whitewater uproar. And they surely would have figured out that Miller's info was all coming from that con man Ahmed Chalabi.
Sorry Tommy ... that dog won't hunt. Sure there are people who hate Bush ... I don't care about Bush enough to hate him.
A lot of us hate what he's done to our country.
Take a step back and try to learn the difference.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
"entrenched haters" // Tommy
I would like to say I 'hate' George Bush, and Dick Cheney, I would.
My feelings toward these scoundrels have long since worn out, I feel nothing for them, or about them. They are like a absyss on a love one's face, red, sore, and filled with puss, the result of a virus that needs to be lanced, and treated with antibiotics.
It's embarassing, it's life threatening while only being seen outwardly as a big pimple as though if I were to ignore it and let them stay home instead of going to the hospital
I would save some money, but unknowing whether they would could die over the night. I would love to take them to the hospital, but they are an unwilling patient, and refuse.
I would see these people as a infection that has been allowed to fester to a critical state while they insist nothing is wrong, and that we should not worry. I don't want to awaken to a DEAD DEMOCRACY!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Tommy: again, I DO NOT HATE BUNGLE!
Despite the destructive nature of that beast, and the damage wrought by it upon this nation and the Constitution thereof, upon every aspect of humanity and sentience . . .
I DO NOT HATE BUNGLE!
I oppose him, would deny his membership in the species, and would dearly love to see him come to justice in this life and any that follow - but hate is not among the emotions I would waste upon this or any other parasitic worm.
Once more, for emphasis . . .
I DO NOT HATE BUNGLE!
Sorry, I can feel the love now.
Hate to see what you define as hate. :-)
Hate is reserved for 1) those whom I regard as human - Bungle still qualifies according to the NIS, but I beg to differ 2) those somewhat related to me - even IFF human, Bungle is demonstrably unlike anything regarded as this species, other than the Bungloids 3) those whose malice and evil is directed specifically toward me - whereas Bungle is more universal in his aim, encompassing all humanity.
As with those parasitic worms (earlier post), I would exert every effort to extinguish Bungle and ilk - whether through pesticides or political reform - and, as with the worms, would take great satisfaction in the accomplishment.
Unlike dealing with the worms and Bungle, though, I am capable of being fairly (actually, VERY) vengeful; and that requires the activation of the true hatred reserved for those seemingly kindred but opposed, and evil in relation specifically to me.
Vengeance on worms? No. Death for worms. Vengeance upon Bungle? No. Justice for Bungle,
Disturbing that you describe people you disagree with as not human.
I'm sure if you had your way you'd have those on the right in special camps, and soon begin The Final Solution to the problem of the sub-humans.
You have presented as given, the point you wish to argue. Back up, take a logic or rhetoric class, and start again.
Or, just proceed with your (circular) argument, and never address any of the elements adduced to support that which you oppose: my disdain for Bungle is precisely the same as that felt toward "innocent" parasites, doing exactly what they evolved to do. The (perhaps) hyperbolic contention that Bungle is unlike anything *I* ever considered human, is supportive of that argument, for whether Bungle is (or is not) precisely homo sapiens lies outside the defining characteristic of that contention. For purposes of defining *my* distinction between the emotion felt toward human evil directed at me (hate) and (at least) inhuman malignancy directed toward all humanity, the parasitic worms are a perfect parallel.
You are welcome to choose.
One small difference between Clinton haters and Bush haters. Bush is hated for things he actually did.
Bravo. Let's not forget that the right-wing politics of hate started in the 1990s with Clinton hatred.
One word response: TOUCHE! (p.s. GO HILLARY . . . GO ALL DEMS!).
JLYONS:
The Rightwingers for certain put their partisan political hatreds WELL ABOVE the good of the country, as they labored EIGHT SOLID YEARS of Bill Clinton's two terms jumping from one baseless "scandal" to another, trying to paralyze and then remove the President.
TWICE, the American People voted Clinton into office to have him run the nation, and the Republican Rightwing were determined to DENY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
It is certainly clear that the Republicans despise America, her people, her institutions, and her Constitution, since they work so very hard every day to undermine each of the above. (Ask for examples, I dare you!).
If WE THE PEOPLE let them, the Republicans in alliance with the Rightwing Mainstream Media, will continue their efforts to destroy this nation, unless they get their way and REPUBLICANS have majorities in Congress AND the White House. THEN, of course, the destruction of America begins in earnest!
NOTE every action and inaction of the Bush Administration for SEVEN YEARS with the rubber stamp of the GOP Congress: We have lost jobs, burgeoning debt, war without end and without justification, corruption, SLEAZE GALORE, rampant greed, favoritism, and cronyism, stagnant wages crippled by astronomically rising prices of food, gas, energy, and health care, we TORTURE, we INVADE WITHOUT CAUSE, and we IGNORE INTERNATIONAL LAW. The destructions of America by Republicans are really too numerous to name, because they include IGNORING regulatory enforcement and JUSTICE DEPARTMENT effectiveness.
REPUBLICANS ARE HORRIBLE FOR AMERICA, whether they win elections or not. Do we have the strength and character to IGNORE THEM? It's our only hope.
The list reads like a Who's Who of Republican Scum.
Gee, with a cast of characters that includes Coulter, Morris and Mark Levin, why in the world would anyone think this is a biased film of Hillary bashing?
MMFA doesn't like the film?, then don't watch it. Who would except rabid Clinton haters?, and no amount of pre-emptive "misinformation" threads such as this one will ever change their minds.
If you don't like the item from MMFA then feel free not to comment.
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that 2008 will be your year!
I could say the same thing to you, but then what else would you have to complain about?
If you don't like my critiques of threads here, please feel free to ignore them.
If you don't like the threads here, please feel free to ignore them.
Tommy,
"MMFA doesn't like the film?, then don't watch it." --------> I'm just following along your train of thought here....
If this item is a waste of time, then why are you wasting yours dispensing advice?
MHK of course you do not want dissenting opinion, and that is fine. Its not the America I want to live in but ok.
Sue,
You found out all about my secret plot to squelch all dissenting opinions on MMFA.
I'm really hoping that you get a clue for x-mas this year.
Cheers.
MHK, I hope Santa brings you some hater ointment.Hater.
Tommy, I was thinking the same thing. Why would any fair minded non partisan watch this movie anyway? Its just like the movies F-911 and Outfoxed. Movies that promote division and partisanship. I would not believe the likes of Ann Coulter or Mark Levin to even waste a second watching or listening to what these partisans think.
Its just like the movies F-911 and Outfoxed
Sorry sweetie, I disagree. Outfoxed provided clear and consise facts. It was not a film like this mock job against the Senator.
Sue consistently drops STOOPID BOMBS and retreats to tommy and others for cover. S/he's the most ignorant and divisive poster on this site. Sue, STFUP! I think you can understand that simple code.
how does "Outfoxed" promote division?
Tommy, I'm going to agree with you on this one. This MMFA article says "Some guy is in a movie about Hillary." And for "misinformation" they offer a few snipets which are clearly opinions, rather than ascertations of "fact."
I'm sure they'll be able to do a lot better once the full movie is released, and I look forward to seeing them do just that, but it's a pretty weak thread at this point. There's just not much here.
(Won't it be funny though if she doesn't get the nom? It would end up being kind of a waste of money, no?)
I believe all this Clinton slamfest actually helps her more than it hurts her. We have heard it all before, there is nothing new - so these attacks are just gratuitous childish rightwing do-overs that remind people how vitriolic and hateful these people were back in the 90's.
Do Levin and Coulter and the rest really want to slime themselves in all this again? I think people are done with it, it's sickening and old news.
Films like this only highlight how unhinged the Clinton hatred still is - and she comes out looking reasonable and above it all.
Wow. I'm agreeing with you twice in one post. Either your getting soft, I'm losing faith or the world is ending. ;)
Still... I could see something like this, if done right, could sway some people right for the election. On the other hand, I think it's closer to what your saying: It will be done in such a way that only people who already hate will consider it worth watching.
Hey, it's all that peace and goodwill toward men feeling, apparently.
Yes, probably no new misinformation here, but does support MMFA's concerns in previous postings about the manner in which the MSM treated Gerth's book as a distinguished piece of objective journalism.
Oh, OK. I guess I get it now. Thanks.
It can stop the contagion, Tommy Boy. That's the point.
Tommy your role as devil's advocate and agent provocateur is so tiresome and predictable.
Dems have great, fantastic and talented candidates. The GOP's got nada. See that, know that, acknowledge that.
Dems and independents: Stop buying what you're being sold. Hillary is not cold and calculating, Barack is not unqualified, and Edwards is not vain or elitist . Kerry was not a phony war heroe. These are character assisinations.
We can't win elections because independents are --for the most part -- lapsed republicans and/or fiscal conservatives.
Our in-fghting leads to least common denominator presidents like the moronic GW Bush. Put aside the issues that motivate you most and look at the bigger issues at stake.
Have we learned nothing from 2000 and 2004?
A house divided cannot stand. UNITE.
Hero, Heroe . . .Potatoe, Potato, WTF!
--Dan Quayle
We can't win elections because independents don't adhere to far left ideology and far right ideology. The reality is that most people in this nation are not rabidly liberal. It seems a waste of time to nominate someone who appeals to the liberals in primaries and can't appeal to the moderates in the general election.
ACHRISPAGE says, "The reality is that most people in this nation are not rabidly liberal."
RESPONSE: True, which is why the Rightwing try so hard to FALSELY DEPICT all Democratic candidates as "rabidly liberal" ... when they ARE NOT.
It's also true that most people in this nation are not rabid NeoCons. In fact, the rabid NeoCons are so few, they can fill one house (the White House). The rest of the nation DISAGREES with NeoCon goals and tactics.
This is why Republicans have to LIE and DECEIVE in order to try to get elected. Ah yes, and then HATEMONGER.
They LIE, saying they are new "compassionate conservatives", to try to win over the middle. Then, they HATEMONGER by rallying bigots and haters against gays, women, blacks, and anyone who is not a born-again evangelical Christian.
Finally, they WARMONGER, stating that anyone who does not support Bush and his NeoCon Iraq War is against the troops, Anti-American, and cowardly.
So, that, simplistically, is how the Republicans go about trying to win elections when their agenda is supported by only a tiny minority of the American People (the very wealthy and the very power hungry).
Hate, fear, wedge issues, and LYING. That's their strategy. Will it WORK, AGAIN? (it has obviously worked in the past).
I'm thinking the American People have seen behind the curtain, and hate what they see: Republican elitists consolidating money and power in the very few elitist hands, and ZERO concern for the American People.
Tex - there was a movie about Ohio's 2004 election. All the Republican volunteers treated it as a football game - win at all costs. No issues debated. No running on past accomplishments. Just bash the opponent at every opportunity.
Well I watched the trailer. All opinion. The only one I'd absolutely disagree with is that she's worse than Nixon...or for that matter the current occupant of the Oval Office, who wasn't mentioned...of course ;-)
Other than that, where's the misinformation?
Is MMFA now going after anyone that makes a less than flattering movie/documentary about Hillary?
Now perhaps after the documentary is released MMFA can comb through it and find something.
But for now, I'm gonna ask...WITH?
But for now, I'm gonna ask...WITH?
Fisticuffing again, my sweet? :-0)
You really don't get why this is here? It's pretty obvious.
Jeff Gerth was once a "star" reporter, who wrote many an unflattering article about HC for the NY Times. He wrote a full length biography about her that was accepted kindly by the MSM due to his Times background. Now, he has now basically come out of the closet in an anti-HC film. His stance as an equal among these virulent anti-HC conservative operatives (con-ops?) sheds an interesting light on all of the writings about the subject he ever made previously, don't you think?
Oh, well. Maybe Hillary should remember this speech by FDR:
"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."
I have never figured out why the extreme hatred of Hillary has been a fixture of the right-wing crazies for so long. Fear of woman with power? Well, that covers lone wackos like Matthews, I suppose. But most of the rest are just pamphleteers of the worst kind. They knew from the day Bill was elected that they had to blacken his reputation, because he had the potential to start reversing the Konservative Katechism. So their hatred is partly phony, assumed for propaganda purposes.
I also have to admit that Obama's appearance in this "documentary," even though it's a clip from ABC and probably has another connection, marks the time in the campaign when I fell very definitely out of love with Obama. To confirm this right-wing story line, and to agree with it, is unpardonable. Please, tell us what you'll do that's different. Don't think you can breeze by, even when powerful interests are looking for you to demolish Hillary, by simply echoing the right-wing story lines. It sort of looks like... triangulation, doesn't it, Barack? He's found a way to attack Hillary from the right, using press surrogates, and then to scream maidenly purity when the Clintons or their surrogates bring up the things that may cause him problems later on. All the while, filling the air with prattle about unity and sitting down and talking about it, supposedly being non-ideological. Don't be naive, Obama. So, which is he? Did he accept the corrupt bargain? Or is he just an empty suit?
Are you suggesting that Obama's appearance in this film is voluntary?
I would find that very hard to believe, and in fact would require proof before even entertaining the notion.
Film clips cadged off TV news broadcasts are in the public domain, and are fair game to be picked up by any crackpot and inserted in a propaganda film such as this one. That's why Obama can't sue these jamokes, more's the pity.
The repugs don't deal in facts, that's why the crap they produce is silly. F-ll and outfoxed was chock loaded with facts and statements by repugs themselves, go ahead repugs and keep lying.
Media Matters is missing a great opportunity to educate its readers by telling them more about Jeff Gerth. He is the guy who single-handedly flogged the bogus Whitewater story, based solely on information from David Hale. Hale was a con man who got caught embezzling a couple of million from the government and was looking to make a deal by dishing dirt on Clinton. As with Judith Miller, the Times did not demand that Gerth demostrate that he had credible sources. (Contrast this with the WP treatment of Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate.) It was Gerth and the Times that generated so much pressure that Clinton finally agreed to appoint an independent prosecutor.
Gerth also was largely respsonsible for the Wen Ho Lee travesty.
Unlike the Judith Miller debacle the Times has gotten away scot free for the damage Gerth caused. So much for our liberal media.
I can think of nothing more satisfying than watching these people hyperventilate if she gets elected! Even if their claims were true, it would be worth it to elect her, just to witness their collective seizure!
I do agree that watching the right completely go insane would be very entertaining, the main problem is that after all that is said and done, Hillary still has to be the President of the United States. Can she do the job, given her past experience? I, personally, would like to know more about EXACTLY what she plans to do.
The Pig in a Pant Suit and the MSM are caught again pushing lying propaganda. This time it's about the phony Rudy travel expenses scandal.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019333.php
Lie...it's what the left does...It's all they have