Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Philly Inquirer: Clinton's memoirs not believable!! Grrrrrr

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 09:20 AM
Original message
Philly Inquirer: Clinton's memoirs not believable!! Grrrrrr
Edited on Mon Jun-21-04 09:34 AM by Monica_L
I count every one of the RW anti-Clinton talking points
in this article. If they want to talk about confabulation,
they have only to look at the Squatter that now resides at
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And as for the CBS not challenging Clinton on pardons
and such, when has anyone ever challenged the
Shrub when he gives one of his non sequitor, canned
responses to important questions.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/8972903.htm


He spun a few childhood yarns last night, and there are more in the memoir, but the show didn't touch on whether all his recollections can be believed. Back in 1996, President Clinton told a radio audience that "I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child," and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported the next day that there was no evidence that any black church had ever been burned there.

And even though CBS gave Clinton an entire hour-long show, the dictates of TV prevented a substantive discussion of most crucial subjects. Clinton defended his pardon of investor Marc Rich (a convicted criminal whose wife had donated lavishly to the future Clinton library), and he wasn't challenged. He said he tried hard to kill bin Laden, but didn't address the possibility that he was less than fully attentive during the days when he was battling the Lewinsky revelations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Consider the souorce (Dick Polman)
Dick Polman is the most anti-Democratic staffer at the Inqy. He has been reporting on the "campaign trail" for the past three months, focusing entirely on the Democratic party, and has literally had nothing good to say about the efforts of the Democrats. Even if something happened that was an unqualified boon for the party, he has found ways to cast not just doubt on it, but portray the Democrats as being deeply divided on the issue.

Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. (PNI - A Division of Knight-Ridder) owns both the Inquirer and the Daily News. The Daily News is by far the more liberal newspaper, and the Inqy, while the "Paper of Record", has become significantly conservative, and its editorial staff have taken on the personae of overbearing high-school teachers.

I suspect there is some "institutional support" being given the Inqy, since the local Catholic Archbishop and his three predecessors have been activist conservatives. In addition, the Mellon and Scaife families' money has been well-represented in Philly. With well-muscled ghosts like that, it's a wonder the Inqy hasn't switched over to printing in German Blockscript.

--bkl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I should be used to their pronounced rightwing tilt by now
I've only been kept sane by reading Ed Hermann's great
site: www.inkywatch.org

He really calls them on their BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-21-04 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I have e-mailed Dick a few times and he never responds!
Guess he knows I'm right. He always ends his articles on the Democrats with some snide comment, too. It doesn't surprise me that once again, he complains about something happening in regards to a Democrat, but is silent about how it happens to Republicans.

As for the editorial staff, they seem to be fiscally conservative (not neo-conservative,) with some socially liberal stances (they are still pro-choice and generally pro-enviornment.) They challenge Bush on the debt he's created and how he shortchanges some programs like No Child Left Behind. But they rarely rip into Bush for the war or do any commenting on all his corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC