Wash. Post misreports Bill Clinton's Swift Boat comments ... again
SUMMARY: The Washington Post again falsely reported that former President Bill Clinton claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Democratic opponents engaged in "Swift boat"-style attacks on her. In fact, President Clinton condemned Republican attacks on Democrats and the media's role in contributing to such attacks.
For at least the fourth time, The Washington Post has falsely reported that former President Bill Clinton claimed (or, according to one article, "insinuated") that Democratic presidential candidates engaged in "Swift boat"-style attacks on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) during an October 30 debate. In a January 18 article, Post staff writer Peter Baker wrote: "[President Clinton] has likened [his wife's] Democratic rivals to Republican 'Swift boat' attackers." In fact, as Media Matters for America previously documented, President Clinton did not compare Democratic presidential candidates to "Swift boat" attackers. Rather, he condemned Republican attacks on Democrats and the role the media play in contributing to such attacks.
In his November 5 speech, President Clinton said:
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.
In a November 8 report, Post staff writer Dan Balz made the false assertion 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." Similarly, in a November 14 article, Post staff writer Michael D. Shear wrote: "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." In a November 29 article by Post staff writers Glenn Kessler and Anne E. Kornblut, the paper again misreported Clinton's statements: "After the Democratic debate in Philadelphia last month, the former president insinuated that his wife's Democratic rivals were mounting attacks on her akin to the 'Swift boat' campaign Republicans launched against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 race -- an explosive charge that prompted some of Hillary Clinton's rivals to lash out more aggressively than ever."
In fact, as is clear from the transcript above, President Clinton was warning that "cutesy" debate questions would provide fodder for unfair Republican attack ads.
From the January 18 Washington Post article:
As Clinton travels the country campaigning for his wife with characteristic intensity, he is fighting not only to promote Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy but also to set the record straight on the two terms he spent in the White House. And if some cast the Democratic nomination battle as a test of whether the party wants to turn the page on the Clinton years, then he is determined to win the referendum.
Friends describe a man who has made peace with the past since leaving the Oval Office, but with his wife's campaign now on the line, Clinton's frustration seems to be boiling over. He has likened her Democratic rivals to Republican "Swift boat" attackers and castigated Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for making up a "fairy tale" about Obama's war position. Just this week he berated a television reporter who asked about a dispute over Nevada caucus rules.
"What he perceives is a lack of fairness -- equal scrutiny, equal accountability," said the Rev. Carolyn Staley, a longtime friend from Arkansas. "While their lives have been an open book for all these years they've been in public service, other candidates have not been subject to that sort of scrutiny."
Bill is far more testier than he was during his presidential years, and has pretty much been above all of this political squabbling since he has become a private citizen; but either he has gotten grumpier since he has gotten older, or he is genuinely worried that he can't just cakewalk Hillary to the nomination based on the way he perceives the public feels about him now, and how he figured that would translate into votes for his wife.
And we thought Hillary was the one with the temper, maybe not.
Tommy,
I'm surprised I haven't seen more on this aspect of the HillandBill campaign. I read way down in the threads where Bill is outraged but it never seems to percolate to the "storyline".
I wonder if MMFA is not drawing attention to something the Clinton's are trying to keep under the radar?
As best I can recall, and I could be wrong, MMFA has remained silent on this until, surprise! A major media organization brings it up again!
"washingtonpost.com, Newsweek.com and Slate, WPNI’s three news sites, reach over 16 million unique and active people each month."
Wapo Traffic Rank: 885
MMFA Traffic Rank: 35,286
WaPo rewashes it, repackages it and drags it back out for those 16 million to see, then MMFA gives their rebuttal, but gets the blame for "drawing attention to something the Clinton's are trying to keep under the radar."
But if that's truly the case, it does kind of go against the prime directive of an alleged Hillary-founded and supported site though, doesn't it?
Pete,
I don't generally follow any of those links. Thanks for sharing.
"don't follow" meaning...
You need the significance of the links explained to you?
Or you can care less if someone rebuts you with sources?
Pete,
What I meant is that I don't use those sites as my source for news or commentary.
Hope that helps.
Pete,
My point is the same. I wonder why MMFA is bringing up this subject. So there are some other websites that also might have done it. That doesn't mean that it has made it to the mainstream media's storyline.
My point is that MMFA is helping keep alive a storyline that I would think the Clinton's would want to keep under the radar. But then I'm repeating myself. Of course maybe the Clinton's don't mind the media knowing of Bills temper tantrums. :-)
I'm guessing there will be a media backlash showing that Bill is stealing the show from Hill. But then I might be wrong. Feel free to disagree.
I would say considering what has transpired over the past few months with Bill becoming increasingly pissy about Obama's campaign, as he is really the only stumbling block to Hillary representing her party in the general election......then the case is even stronger now than it was then that Bill most definitely was speaking of fellow Democrats, and not Republicans with his "swift boat" reference.
If Hillary loses the nomination the Republicans can hardly be blamed for that, in fact, all arrows point to them wanting to run against her far more than Obama.
And what is wrong with Gov. Clinton showing a little passion about something he cares deeply about? Sheer Insanity and his ilk have jumped on this as if it were wrong to show some emotion about important things. Do you honestly think "Rudy" is a day at the beach when he's unhappy? Golly - he sounds like a thug when he's positive about something. We know Sen. McCain has a temper. What's wrong with that?
Or do you prefer a President making jokes, sticking his hinney out from under his desk, while Americans are getting shot up and killed overseas?
This is nothing new.
Bill Clinton's legendary temper, his "purple fits" have been documented by Bob Woodward among others since 1994 at least.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6JDz3HkbllIC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=stephanopoulos+%22clinton's+temper%22&source=web&ots=BXCAp7bZCJ&sig=xBSGXbbM8gt6t8HZZZDOfcSLnFk#PPA109,M1
What's changed is 3 networks with a 24/7 news cycle and the addition of the internet and blogs to the mix.
I've seen two reporters joke that Clinton wasn't really angry in this recent exchange because he didn't give the reporter the "finger wag."
TOMMY:
"Testier ... squabbling ... grumpier" ... wow, are you saying these things are BAD in politics? If so, your list of people who are horrible political figures must be very long. Truman, Bush, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Novak, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and literally THOUSANDS of others have "shown their temper", CONSTANTLY. Reagan was roundly cheered when he got testy in an early campaign debate and said, "I PAID FOR THIS MICROPHONE!"
Isn't it true, Tommy, that you BEGIN with the notion that you don't like the Clintons, and then you criticize WHATEVER they do, regardless of how subjective, unfair, out of context, and contrary to REALITY your complaint might be? Isn't it true that if Reagan did something (throw a tantrum), it's GREAT, but if Clinton does so in your estimation, it's a bad thing?
And IF this is true (if you are honest, it IS), then what value and honesty do your comments really have?
the politics of vicitmization is alive and well.
This is just another obvious attempt by MMFA to cast the Clintons as being unfairly treated by the media.
How many times can they go to this well? Maybe lots. They do it so well.
:-)
Yeah, the Clinton's were NEVER victimized by the media during Bill's tenure in office. Nope, never had an unfair story written about either himself, or his wife. They never made things up out of whole cloth (Brock I'm looking over there at you), and tried to get him bounced out of office (and almost did). Yep, never an unfair word was written about the Clintons, nope, never. Unless of course you were living in a cave in Madagascar during his entire Presidency.
Bill and Hillary pretty much have a right to be angry at the media, and for how they're portrayed in it, because seldom, if ever, have the media been really fair to them.
Mag,
It's all in perception. I am of the opinion that the Clinton's get away with more scandals and more ill advised statements daily that if it were anyone else, would have sunk a candidacy long time ago.
You illustrate to me what generally happens. Not that you are not an intelligent person, (I think you are and enjoy your posts,) but it seems to me that there is an almost reflexive response by those on the left every time they do something stupid or immoral to defend or deflect the criticism that Hillary actually invites.
Yes it all started with the Ken Starr investigations and Bill lying about his affair with Lewinski. We all know what happened so no need to rehash. Since Hill and Bill have kept in the public spotlight no matter what they do, whenever they are called on it, we see the same reaction which is they were unfairly treated and they have a right to be defensive.
I just don't see what Hillary offers that makes her such a popular candidate. Is it simply because she's a woman? Is it because she's a Clinton? She keeps talking about experience, but what kind of experience is it? Sitting in the Senate for 6 years? Is she claiming being married to the President counts? I don't understand the infatuation.
What I do see is MMFA and her surrogates having to daily defend both Clinton's from everything and anything by saying she isn't treated fairly.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.
Saying that they're treated unfairly and supporting them are two different things. Your point was that they're not treated unfairly, which has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of her qualifications.
Brab,
No argument about that from me. Feel free to disregard it. It is off topic.
Yeah the Wall Street Journal's 6 book deluxe account of the Whitewater non-scandal was a perception.
It didn't really happen.
HRC is the most scrutinized candidate I can remember.
It's hard to argue in this election cycle she hasn't been.
What's "perception" is that she's getting away with something.
That's something the right wing has believed about the Clinton's since the early days of Bill Clinton governing Arkansas and nothing at this late stage of the game is going to change that opinion.
Johnny,
I don't disagree with your statement. I find it interesting that the Democrats want to take someone like Hillary who does evoke such negatives and run her as their Presidential candidate. You may think Hillary is treated unfairly, but to me it would be like the Republicans nominating Cheney. Both Cheney and Hillary bring out strong feelings on the other side. I think it is political folly to try and overcome all these negatives.
Of course the Clinton's are doing their best to overcome them, but Hillary, in my opinion, offers nothing to the Democrats over Obama, (even if she is more conservative!) She brings all that baggage that causes the right to rise up and try to defeat her.
It goes back to this reflexive defensive reaction. Liberals are so upset with the right that they will push Hillary simply because the right can't stand her.
(Just my humble opinion.) :-)
AA:
Interesting. The Republicans HAVE run Cheney, both for Congress and then TWICE as the Vice President. And guess what? HE WON.
So now you say the Dems running Hillary makes as much sense as the Republicans running Cheney for political office.
Ok, I agree. Great point.
Me,
I do believe the Starr Investigation spent closer to $50 million and in case you didn't know, the special prosecutor and investigation was recommended by Janet Reno. You may say it ran amuck, but it wasn't a Republican conspiracy.
The Clinton's were anything but untouched. Bill was impeached if you remember and had to plea bargain to avoid a perjury conviction. He blatantly lied to the American Public. Whether he was convicted of subordinating perjury or not, he let others defend him with false statements in front of a grand jury when he knew he was lying. Bill's legacy will be at the minimum that he was a scoundrel and put the country through an impeachment when he could have spared all this and resigned.
I think all this will again rise up if Hillary gets the nod. I am of the opinion that the public will be reminded of all this and Clinton fatigue will set in. I don't think Hillary can rely on emotional moments for the next 10 months.
I do believe the Starr Investigation spent closer to $50 million and in case you didn't know, the special prosecutor and investigation was recommended by Janet Reno. You may say it ran amuck, but it wasn't a Republican conspiracy.
The republicans pushed for a special prosecutor and [I think] Reno agreed to it to show some independence from the Clinton administration. If I were in her position, I would have told them to f_ck off. Anyhow, Arkansas authorities were already investigating White Water so there was no need for a special prosecutor. It was a waste of money.
The Clinton's were anything but untouched. Bill was impeached if you remember and had to plea bargain to avoid a perjury conviction.
Of course he was impeached because republicans had the majority. It was all a political maneuver. And I think he could have beat a perjury rap [even though I though he lied in some instances] but he chose to put the whole thing behind him with minimal/laughable consequences.
He blatantly lied to the American Public. Whether he was convicted of subordinating perjury or not, he let others defend him with false statements in front of a grand jury when he knew he was lying. Bill's legacy will be at the minimum that he was a scoundrel and put the country through an impeachment when he could have spared all this and resigned.
I think it will be the opposite. The whole era will be seen as the hunting of Bill Clinton by any means necessary. The republicans wasted so much of our time trying to find out if Clinton got a BJ (and all of this for political reasons) when we had more important business to attend to.
I think all this will again rise up if Hillary gets the nod. I am of the opinion that the public will be reminded of all this and Clinton fatigue will set in. I don't think Hillary can rely on emotional moments for the next 10 months.
Again, I think it will be the opposite. Being reminded of what the republicans did to the Clintons in the nineties will only help her.
How can even WaPo assign "Swift-Boat" tactics to any but Repugnants?
Just off the top of my head, one could argue that the Democrats in Congress have been "swift boating" the President on the War in Iraq since the beginning. The most famous quote being Reid's "...the war is lost". the NY Times relentless attacks regarding Abu Grahib, Guantanamo, foreign telephone surveillance, Enron, Halliburton, stolen elections, etc., etc.
I guess it's all in how you look at.
Brab,
You make my point. Whether someone is swiftboated is all based on one's perception.
No, I'm not making your point. Your case for swiftboating is not reasonable, so it's not comparable to anything else. Reid's opinion that we're losing in Iraq (which was contingent on Bush's future actions, remember) is both common and defensible. Reports about prisoner abuse up to and including torture, illegal surveillance, etc. are legitimate news stories, whether they fit your chosen spin or not.
It's false equivalence. It's not like you can say "well you call inconsistent and questionable testimony against Kerry swiftboating...I call all these stories about Bush swiftboating, so it all evens out". It doesn't. Perception can be evaluated, and so reasonable charges can be separated from unreasonable ones.
BRAB:
To "SwiftBoat" is to accuse without proof, and to make statements contrary to recorded facts and official reports, offering no evidence for the assertions.
To say Bush has been "Swiftboated" on Iraq is to entirely misunderstand, through willful ignorance or just being obtuse, the meaning of the term.
To equate having an affair (and trying to keep it secret) to LYING about a WAR which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of human beings ... that takes a world class disconnection with reality.
These rightwingers sure have their priorities straight. They're JUST FINE being lied to about WAR, about governmental torture, about cronyism and insider deals and no-bid contracts ... all that stuff is A-OK. But don't give them the absolute facts about your getting a BJ? Why, that's an impeachable offense!
It makes the head spin with its utter illogic. It's like obsessing about a sprig of crabgrass in the front lawn while ignoring and being oblivious to the fact that the house is burning down right behind you. People get institutionalized for behavior more rational than rightwingers'.
One of the keys to "how I look at it" is getting the facts straight: the concern is not with "foreign surveillance" but with the FACT that Bungle's administration began the electronic surveillance in April 2001 - almost six months prior to 9/11; and long before Bungle had been aware that there were any "foreign" lands or citizens other than his cherished Mexcans and the Saudis who periodically delivered booty to his dad.
Nor would I (how *I* look at it) characterise the publication of the Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib exposes as "attacks" on the Preznit, but rather on his unconsciounble application of medieval and Unconstitutional methods to the collection of intelligence.
Perhaps the way "*YOU* look at it" those are appropriate techniques for "interrogation" and for data collection?
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."
1) Asking about ILLEGAL Immigrants being eligible for a Driver's License is a perfectly reasonable question.
2) Hillary blew her answer & her Democratic opponents jumped on it
So while Bill Clinton was indeed aiming his ire & words of warning about Republicans, I think it's a tad naive to think [considering the timing of his remarks] that there wasn't a veiled message for Hillary's Democratic opponents as well.
Pete,
I disagree. Obviously illegal immigration is a national conundrum. In addition it was about NY, Hillary's adopted springboard.
Pete,
I understand your point. But the question was whether Hillary agreed with it. I thought it was a fair question since she represents NY and they have motor/voter registration which could have a big impact on federal elections not to mention federally funded welfare help, amnesty, etc.
Pete,
I think Jeter said it best just below. Are you saying illegal immigration is not relevant in this election cycle?
You don't need to answer. The answer is clear. I appreciate you bringing up the point and defending it.
Actually the question of ILLEGAL aliens being eligible for a Drivers License shouldn't even be on the table by the State or the Federal government. The operative word here being ILLEGAL.
In reality ILLEGAL aliens should NOT be eligible for services or licenses of any kind.
However if any lawmakers, be they State or Federal, are advocating otherwise, it's a reasonable,fair & relevant question for the Democratic & Republican candidates for President to be asked.
As a LEGAL citizen, I want to hear their answers.
There's a Swift Boat attack that has gotten remarkably little play - the one against Sen. John McCain. It's outrageous that a small group is attacking his record as a POW. Doesn't anyone remember Ad. Stockdale during the Vice Presidential debates just a few years ago?
The real danger with Swift Boat style attacks is one the field is open to these there is no limit. And that's precisely what is going on right now!
News,
I hadn't heard of this attack on McCain. Got any links?
Can't give you a link (Google will probably do it for you), but it's the same crap that was put out during the SC Primary in 2000. And it seems some of the same people are behind it.
Manchurian candidate (no kidding), preferential treatment as a POW, collaborated with the enemy, the list is endless.
Doug Reese
Hey Doug,
Sounds like dirty tricks or it may be one of those stories that never seems to die. At this point I don't really care. I think it is unfortunate, but anyone who believes it probably was not going to vote anyway. (At least I hope.)