New York Times Pulls Psy-Op on Hillary, DUers fall for it!!!!!

[Jim Sagle]

Two DU threads appeared today, both headlined

Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'

one in Latest Breaking News, the other in General Discussion: Politics. Both contained this excerpt from the New York Times:

Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: July 16, 2006

ROGERS, Ark., July 15 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: “We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.”

“We are wasting time,” the senator told a group of Democratic women here, on part of a two-day swing through a state that could provide an alternate hub to New York if she starts a national political campaign.

Just hours ago, atrios received a transcript of Clinton's actual speech and published this excerpt:

You have to ask yourself, we have all these problems, and we have solutions sitting out there, why can't we move in the right direction? And it really comes down to a difference in values and philosophy. You know the nine women Democratic Senators, anybody see us on Larry King's show? We put out what we call our Checklist for Change. I don't know about you, but I am a list maker. I guess it's like a part of the DNA for women. I make lists about lists. And so we were talking one day and saying, you know, we as individuals, we have all of this legislation, we can't get it on the floor of the Senate. We can't get a vote on it because the Republican majority wants to vote on other things. So we pulled all our best ideas together. Wouldn't this be a good agenda for America: safeguard America's pensions; good jobs for Americans; make college affordable for all; protect America and our military families; prepare for future disasters; make America energy independent; make small business and healthcare affordable, invest in life saving science; and protect our air, land, and water. You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems. But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

Let's run through this again, in slo-mo. the Times headline said:

Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'

The lead sentence re-inforces this (emphasis mine):

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

But what Clinton really said (emphasis mine) was

But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates.

Note Kornblut's sinister lie here. Clinton was chastising Washington Republicans, not the Democratic base as the Times stated.

So this Times exerpt

“We are wasting time,” the senator told a group of Democratic women here, on part of a two-day swing through a state that could provide an alternate hub to New York if she starts a national political campaign.

implies 1) that the Democrats are wasting time and 2) that her speech was strictly about triangulation and positioning.

But this clip from her actual speech

”I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

clearly shows that 1) she meant Congress is wasting its time, and 2) she was talking about solving real problems.

Tell Anne what you think (and please keep it clean and impersonal, if not overly respectful).

[ClassWarrior]

1. kicking cuz we all benefit from clarity

:kick:

NGU.

[midnight]

70. I like your Brian Kennedy post.

Do you have a sign in your yard yet? I have seen two Sensenbrenner signs in my neighborhood as of July 4th weekend.

[eviltwin2525]

2. Wow

I'm no Hillary fan, but that reeks. Either incompetence, bias or both.

[Jim Sagle]

6. I don't see incompetence here. It's a slick and skillful hit job.

Instead of the "trivia filth" slung at Gore and the blatant slander of Kerry, we have here an artful attempt to deepen and widen an already deep and wide split between Clinton and the base.

I should add that I am no fan of Clinton. I just want people to decide whatever they decide about her based on facts instead of lies and clever distortions.

[glitch]

50. Indeed. Quite slick, although crudely blatant. It's going to get worse

as they continue to lose credibility and power. We should be aware and prepared for what's coming.

[bling bling]

61. Applauding your last sentence.

I think that lies and clever distortions have positively saturated and thus completely tainted the MSM and I'm sad to see the readers of alternative sites falling for the lies and distortions from the MSM to the point that we're literally hurting our party.

It's heartening to see that you and some others are doing what you can to clarify the facts. Unfortunately, a lot more people will have read the B.S. article in the Times than will read the clarifications.

The NY Times is one big piece of the puzzle outlining what's wrong with America.

[Reckon]

3. Done

K&R

[ProSense]

4. Both your links go to the LBN article. Since I started

the GD-P thread, the clarification was posted in the thread earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2725746&mesg_id=2726532

[Jim Sagle]

7. Thanks. I fixed the link.

[Zodiak]

5. Interesting analysis

Looks like the MSM is going to try to drive a wedge between Hillary and the Democratic base. They are trying to make a minor abrasion open up into an arterial bleed. Crafty, but not crafty enough to get by the BS-meter.

Good work!

[Jim Sagle]

8. Atrios and kos really spotted it. I'm just popularizing it for DU.

I should add that I'm not ridiculing anyone who fell for it. I fell for it as well.

[Guaranteed]

57. KOS! That Hillary hater, you mean?

LOL ;)

That goes for me, too.

[Nikki Stone 1]

9. Nothing like quoting people out of context

Kornblut should be censured for that. Makes me wonder if maybe Hillary is the right choice after all.

[Jim Sagle]

11. I wouldn't go that far myself.

But it makes me wonder: How much of our negative impression is justified and how much is based on media distortion?

[Autonomy]

74. "Our" negative impression?

She made a mistake not being careful with her pronouns, and you've made the same mistake here. I am not part of this "our"; I don't have a negative impression of her; I think those of you who have a negative impression of HRC have all been duped.

[rodeodance]

10. I sent her an email

[DeepModem Mom]

12. Thank you! K&R!

[The Magistrate]

13. Thank You, Mr. Sagle

[readmoreoften]

14. What am I missing here? It still seems exactly what I thought she said.

It does sound a little softer than the NYT article's headline, I suppose, but I don't see any great distortion in what she said. Or at least what bothered me about what she said.

"So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

What are these "other, controversial things that we do"? Is she talking about gay marriage debates? Murtha's statements against the war? Election reform? Feingold's censure? Or even the Lieberman issue?

I like some of the issues that Clinton was suggesting we tackle (although I may or may not agree on what the goals are on those issues...) I think that it is strange that she characterizes us as "too controversial." Is she just saying that we aren't aggressive enough about the "right" issues? Whatever she is saying, I don't think that it's very clear. I suppose that is intentional. (Or else she wouldn't be saying "things")

[Jim Sagle]

15. I explained it. But for you, I'll explain it again.

Your first mistake is in the clip

I think that it is strange that she characterizes us

She's not characterizing "us" as in "the Democratic base." She's characterizing "us" as in "the Republican-controlled Congress."

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. Exactly! The only weak attempt at PsyOps is in the OP I believe. lol

This is nothing more than the Spin Du Jour.

Unfortunately it is just about as weak as last nights attempt to whitewash Ms. CLinton.

[Jim Sagle]

18. You're being disingenous, I think.

[LincolnMcGrath]

21. DO you need a hug Mister?

:hug:

[Jim Sagle]

30. Not a hug, just an honest read.

So you shamed me into softening a personal attack. Big deal. :(

[LittleClarkie]

41. Or, perhaps, it's just the OP's differing opinion

which you are labeling unfairly as spin.

[Guaranteed]

56. I wouldn't say that this is really a matter of opinion.

Anyone who knows English, as long as that is her full, real quote, should be able to discern the factual context of what she was saying and understand that it is nothing like the way the Times portrayed it.

[Guaranteed]

55. No, the Times fucked up pretty bad, if that's the real quote.

The context of what she said was entirely different than what the Times article set it up as.

[The Count]

16. That article from WaPo sounded like psy-ops - and I am not a fan

of Hillary. But I will defend her against the fascists and their little toadies. I am carefully taking my info about her from as direct source as I cen (i.e - voting record). MSM is NOT a direct source - unless it's a transcript of a speech - as posted here.

[readmoreoften]

19. Hmm. I see what you're saying now, but her comments are very vague.

"So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates."

I can see how this might mean that "we" the Congress is doing controversial things. But since she's talking to Dem women, I can see how it can be taking as "WE DEMOCRATS" are doing things to try to inflame "their" base.

I'm not sure that it is some kind of intentional psyops. It seems to that her speech was vague and could easily be misconstrued. She might want to publically clarify what she meant in order to right the situation. It would be good for her-- she could clarify what she means and win people's trust.

[Jim Sagle]

22. Again, I'm no fan. Even in the real speech, there's a lot of vaguness,

But it's clear she wasn't slamming the Dem base.

[dsc]

20. This is the text I sent

You owe every single reader of your paper an abject, total, and submissive apology for your article in today's NYT. You directly claim that she said "We are wasting time" to Democrats. Instead she said "We are wasting time" about Republicans. I find it very, very, very, very hard to believe this was an honest mistake. The only way I will believe that is if you give an abject, total, and submissive apology for this error.

I would suggest the following wording. In the July 15th article about Hillary Clinton in the NYT I baselessly suggested she had criticized Democrats when instead she had criticized Republicans. It was totally inexcusable for me to have made such a boneheaded error and I humbly ask forgiveness of my readers for having done so. If it happens again, I will offer my resignation since anyone who makes such mistakes on several occasions has no business reporting the news in a major American newspaper.

We are owed this apology and should get it now.

[Evergreen Emerald]

47. Nice

You made me giggle.

[Rageneau]

23. The NYT and WP are constant threats to both truth and liberty.

It is difficult enough to survive the mendacious, avaricious, belligerant, anti-democratic BFEE. And that's BEFORE the corporate press slides into bed with them.

Truth and liberty cannot survive so long as respected outlets like the NYT and WP consistently and insistently slant and bend and manipulate their coverage to report lies beneficial to Republicans instead of the truth necessary for their readers.

Today's MSM -- despite occasional flashes of conscience -- are effectively corrupt and untrustworthy. And that's not going to change. We must get used to the idea that the MSM are, for the most part, enemies of truth and democracy. We must learn to go around them.

The GOP would be nowhere today (and America would be much better off) without the eager collusion of the nation's two 'newspapers of record.'

[AtomicKitten]

24. I'm fully into clarity of context -- thanks for posting this. n/t

[w4rma]

25. I can't believe the NYT tricked me like that. I apologize.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2392688&mesg_id=2392778

[Jim Sagle]

28. No need to apologize - it was a slick and artful con.

[jobycom]

26. The same with every other "LIBERAL" attack on Hillary. You'd think DUers

would have learned watching what they did to Gore and Kerry. But no.

She's our biggest name, our strongest fundraiser, and a legitimate chance to beat the Repubs in 2008. Even if she's not on the ticket, her support can make or break the party. So the Republicans are trying to drown her campaign by weakening her in the primaries. They want nothing to do with facing another CLinton.

That's what Republicans do. They lie. Sad to see so many "Democrats" buying it. They don't have to rig a single machine--we aren't smart enough to win.

[Jim Sagle]

29. I suspect there are still real problems with Clinton.

It's just that now we know not all of them are real.

[jobycom]

33. None of them are.

They've been claiming she's banning video games, banning flag burning, calling for more troops in Iraq, not calling for withdrawal, not being liberal--none of it's true. Read up on each of those issues and you'll find she's 100% liberal. Her plan for withdrawal is a timetable, not immediate withdrawal, and I disagree in part with that, but she's not pro-invasion, not in favor of keeping our troops there, not supporting Bush. She just knows a lot more about getting things done than most DUers, so she approaches issues with the idea of actually solving the problem, instead of feeding the egos of so-called liberals.

I've disagreed with things she's done, and I've got some issues with her as far as her presidential qualifications, but all this swiftboating is getting old. In earl 2001 half the DUers (much smaller group then) claimed Al Gore was a DINO and didn't deserve to win. Now some of the same people claim he's a liberal champion and that the DLC destroyed him. The people who destroyed him were the so-called liberals who are now doing the same thing to H. Clinton. Write their names down. If she announces she's not running, the same people condemning her now will be claiming she was our liberal champion and was destroyed by the DLC.

[Jim Sagle]

35. If you feel that strongly. you should probably develop a thread that

documents your assertions, or point us to a series of links.

What you're saying is, she's being Gored - that a hologram is being projected to mislead us all. I'm not convinced, but I don't dismiss the possibility.

[jobycom]

38. You try it

You just get shouted down and worn down with people reciting the same "facts" you just refuted.

[readmoreoften]

59. I won't shout you down. I'd love a real discussion about HRC.

I definitely voting against her in the Senate primary, but that is only because I strongly believe in the character and values of her challenger in the primary. I also want a Senator who is committed to being the Senator. But he will most likely lose and I will be, of course, voting for her in the general election.

I'd also like to get info on her before 2008. She strikes me as a slippery character, but I also know that the GOP is obsessed with destroying her, so I don't know exactly how much is disinformation. I heard that she voting down the flag burning Amendment, but countered it with a different flag-burning amendment. Is this true? My experience with her is that she isn't a strong advocate of labor, but she certainly isn't anti-labor. I'm not sure how firm she is on late-term abortion or parental notification.

Her war stance seems particularly unattractive. We need to start pulling out now, not on a timetable. So I know for a fact that I wholeheartedly disagree with her on that.

Can you give some links?

[jobycom]

76. Sure

Vote-smart.org is always a place to go. On labor, she gets 93% to 100% ratings by the AFL-CIO, and UAW (who has given her 110% ratings in some years). Individual unions give her different ratings, but they are always in the 80s, and often 100%. Her lowest is 73% by Electrical Workers, and 62% by Tobacco. She is a constant proponent of raising the minimum wage and has called for tying the wage to Congressional pay raises.

Abortion, gender issues, animal rights, environment, family issues, womens issues, she's usually 100%, or just below. On late-term aborion, she voted against it both times in 2003. Can't find anything specific on parental notification, but NARAL has given her 100% each year, and the Right To Life wackos give her 0.

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268

--------------------


On flag burning, she opposed the amendment, but to counter a Republican complaint that someone could burn a flag as a hate crime to intimidate someone, the way a cross is burned, she co-sponsored (along with Barbara Boxer, and others opposed to the amendment) a bill to counter that. Notice below, it does nothing that isn't already done by other laws.

"Flag Protection Act of 2005 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag."

------------

On Iraq, she's been against the invasion from the start. Her speech before voting for the IWR said exactly what Wesley Clark said--that this vote was an attempt to head off war. She has since said she regretted the vote and placed too much trust in Bush--as Kerry, Edwards, and others have said. She criticized BushCo for its Halliburton deals, she criticized them for not sending enough troops in the first place (this is where the claim that she wanted more troops sent comes from), and she has called for a timetable for withdrawal repeatedly, beginning this year. Not as fast as I'd like, but nowhere near supporting the invasion, as many claim. Sure, I love Kennedy and Bird and the others who voted against the IWR, and respect them a bit more, but she's a long way from being a supporter of the invasion, and her criticism has been much the same as Kerry's.

-------------

There's nothing slippery about her, that's just more of the same spin they used on Bill. Read some of her speeches.

“It is unacceptable that Americans working full time are living in poverty. Every day the minimum wage is not increased, it continues to lose value and working families fall further behind. It is past time to stand up for working families and raise the minimum wage,” said Senator Clinton. “I also believe we should tie the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises. If we in Congress can give ourselves a raise, surely we can raise the pay of working families struggling to make ends meet.”

on DARFUR:

"“We have a moral duty and a responsibility under international law to stand up for the safety of millions of people in Darfur who remain vulnerable to attack. The time for rhetoric has passed. We urgently need the President to appoint a Special Envoy to Sudan and work with other countries to meet the African Union’s request for U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur. We need sustained, high-level attention to this ongoing crisis.”

In March, Senator Clinton sent a letter to the President describing 13 specific steps that can and should be taken by the United States to address the crises in Sudan. In May, Senator Clinton issued a statement for the Congressional Record, repeating her longstanding call for urgent action on Darfur. She has long supported the African Union Mission in Darfur, and was pleased by the Senate’s authorization in May of additional funding for United Nations peacekeeping operations. Many of Senator Clinton’s statements and actions on Darfur are available here.

On JUDGE ROBERTS:

I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts’s long history of public service.

On ALITO:

"Because I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear, I oppose his nomination and support efforts to block his confirmation.” (This included supporting a filibuster).
"History will show that Judge Alito’s nomination is the tipping point against constitutionally-based freedoms and protections we cherish as individuals and as a nation. He would roll back decades of progress, and roll over when confronted with an administration too willing to play fast and loose with the rules."

On an on and on. She's as liberal as anyone in the senate, and as liberal as any candidate. Check her out on Vote-smart, and dig deeper when you hear the claims that she's slippery, or just posturing, or all the rest. Her views have been consistently liberal (more liberal than her husband's) since she came into the spotlight in 92.

I'm still not committing to her as a candidate. I still like Gore better, and if he doesn't run, I'm still waiting to see who else runs. I like her better than Edwards or Clark, about the same as Kerry, and I'm hoping for someone else to emerge that I like more. But my complaints about her aren't that she isn't a liberal--that's just not justifiable.

[juajen]

34. Hear, hear!

N/T

[madrchsod]

27. thanks for the clarification

but i still do not like her

[Canuckistanian]

31. If this is the case, then she needs to be more definitive

Her original statements were vague and just screaming to be taken out of context.

[dsc]

32. Oh Please

This was a total hatchet job. This wasn't taking something out of context it was lying. This was a totally purposeful lie.

[Cocoa]

36. misinformation about Hillary is rampant on DU

in just the last day, it has been "reported" here that Hillary voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales, and that she voted for the flag burning amendment.

Neither of which is true.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

42. Right, she didn't vote for nor currently supports the Iraq war?

And it is a mortal lock she loses in 2008. Hopefully in the primary season.

[brentspeak]

43. I'm with you on her needing NOT to be the Democratic nominee

But in fairness to the Democratic senators who voted for the "authorization of force" -- they're not the ones who launched the invasion or even wanted the invasion (except maybe for Lieberman). Bush was going to invade Iraq even if his own Republicans were against it. And Clinton does want us to get out of Iraq soon, just not immediately, right this second.

[Cocoa]

45. wtf?

Wtf does her vote on Iraq have to do with what I wrote?

:wtf:

[boolean]

37. Why is anyone surprised?

The corporate media did the same thing to Howard Dean, and Democrats fell for it.

Hillary would win. Support the winner this time.

[Jim Sagle]

40. Hey, if she wins the primary, I will.

[Metta]

39. Done. Thanks.

She/ the Times should know better. Is this their way of pandering to *?

[CTLawGuy]

44. sloppy journalism if I ever saw it

kick and rec.

[farmbo]

46. Done...No big HRC fan here, but this was media manipulation at its worst!

eom

[Guaranteed]

58. Same here. Pretty uncalled for.

I don't like that shit at all.

I'd actually guess that the author of the article either read or heard what Hillary said wrong. But she made a ridiculous mistake, in any case.

[caligirl]

48. I emailed Ann too here is it, she shouldn't play fast and loose with

words.
"Why you deceptive little minx. Hillary chastised Congress and Republicans, NOT Democrats, for wasting time. Only imbeciles like Bush would take you at your word. Could you too be on the Bush payroll? What Hillary really said from a copy of the speech is: "But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates." "I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

[dweller]

53. nice

but i would have caller her a stinking liar.

more of a skunk than a minx.
dp

[Reckon]

49. I'm in total agreement with Jim Sagle

and I told NY Times about too!

A word of caution, always be careful using we, us, they, them, etc. Try to be more specific, because as you can see, it can be twisted.

[samsingh]

51. keeping this kicked

[Senator]

52. Kornblut warrants NO Respect -- Don't offer any

She is either unable to do her job or worse willfully lying to the public.

We need to start ripping these people up. They really do take anger personally -- and they should.

I know it doesn't make any sense to most of us in the "reality-based" community, but these Euphemedia stooges have been well-conditioned (literally-subliminally-Pavlovianly) to think that angrier/louder is more correct/important. Yes, really. They translate it as "more staunchly held/believed" and (irrationally) apply more value to such responses.

Really, think about it. We see how they "think." A well-reasoned, polite argument is an alien concept to them.

(In essence, it's just another aspect of violence pervading our culture from the neofascists. Just a non-physical form. But we waste far too much time "analyzing" and far too little time confronting.)

--

[Guaranteed]

54. That is a VERY stark difference. The Times ought to apologize. nt

[wellst0nev0ter]

60. I Also Offer My Apologies

for jumping on Clinton's throat. Last time I trust Anne Kornblut again.

From Eric Boelert's Lapdogs

Substituting as host of Meet the Press, Andrea Mitchell on August 15 (2004) pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliot's and Adrian Lonsdale's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The thruth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question. that he came back from the war and then protested it. So I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely reelected that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boat ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Worst "liberal" media EVER.

[Festivito]

64. Interesting. How might a Kornblut be created and kept I wonder?

Family connections?
Realization of how promotions and pay raises occur?
Insane conservative zealotry?
Payoffs?
CIA? (The un"Church"ed CIA)

This could be an interesting place to begin to understand our media.

[FredStembottom]

62. This also shows the slackness characteristic of Hillary's speech

"But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

"...we do things that try to inflame their base..." the "we" means Dems and Repubs both, according to your analysis. 7 words later she speaks of "their" base. Just Republicans alone, apparently.

'...so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates." Whose candidates? Those of the Republicans in Congress - or the people's candidates? Or.....?

I believe that you are correct about Clinton's intentions - but what a mess!

And she speaks like this all the time.

[bigbrother05]

75. She had been referring to her fellow Senators

and the many concrete proposals the Dem women had put together. She was contrasting those proposals with how they had been forced to waste time by the Fristian maneuvers and Rep pandering.

Her construction was careful enough, otherwise she would be criticized for being overly repetitive by emphasizing Dem and/or Rep at every juncture.

Any problems I have with HRC are mostly personal preference. On any objective basis, she is one of the most qualified candidates in my memory (I remember the 1960 conventions and 1st voted in '72 for McGovern).

Edit to add: It really doesn't matter how carefully you choose your words if someone is determined to smear you.

And with the current state of the MSM, it also doesn't matter how much you lie if they are determined to prop you up.

[Fleshdancer]

63. I recommend sending this to the DNC as well

can't hurt to give them heads up, right?

[sagesnow]

65. At first reading, I also thought HRC was chastising Dem's

just as Kornblut did. It can be read either way. Was she being deliberately vague- chiding democrats in order to appeal more to moderate republicans? Sorry, but I smell triangulation here.

[Jim Sagle]

66. And I smell BS from you.

[mbair]

72. triangulation is a valid criticism

of Hillary, but not in this case. This is just gross and misleading.

Does anyone still read The New York Times? I canceled my TimesSelect, I really miss you Mr. Krugman, but it was just too much.

Recall that this paper published an above the fold front-page article on the Clinton's marriage not long ago. Their marriage is front page news? They've turned into The Star and not one of the good ones.

[HamdenRice]

67. I'm no Hillary fan, but it is important to catch this kind of smear

There are enough true reasons to oppose her. It's not fair when the MSM just starts making shit up.

[Sparkly]

68. Amazing.

I hope MediaMatters picks it up, too.

[Oleladylib]

69. She is absolutely correct..unless we get our act together

and get a platform that is credible and able to be explained to the simple minded American..we will re-elect and no name right winger screaming family values is their invention...It is so sickening.

[Adelante]

71. Good for you, Jim Sagle

DUers MUST adopt critical thinking consistently and not believe everything that comes down the pike. We must verify information, always, but especially when it is used to attack Democrats.

[AndyA]

73. Here's my message to Anne:

Your July 15th article about Hillary Clinton in Arkansas misrepresented the facts, and carried a deceptive title. If you read Hillary Clinton's speech in full, it is apparent Hillary was not speaking of members of the Democratic Party wasting time, but of Congress as a whole wasting time. Further, she clarified this statement by making it apparent that while Democrats had some important legislation that addressed real needs and issues, none of it could make it to the floor, due to the Republicans controlling Congress.

Misrepresentations like this are a disservice to your readership, and I hope it was not intentional on your part.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

77. It's partially Hillary's fault for poor word usage

and Kornblut is not without fault here, but Clinton's poor word choice gave Kornblut the opportunity to flip her words to mean only Democrats. Kornblut is clearly a paid GOP shill, that has been well documented in the past by bloggers, but she submitted a headline which clearly was supported by her quotes- partial as they were, but Cinton's words nonetheless.
So instead of wasting time writing to Kornblut, I would write the public editor- ALL editors at the Times, and explain the misrepresentation and poor reporting by their next candidate for the Jayson Blayre/Judith Miller award.
Also, Hillary is big girl and can get in this thing herself if she feels she was misrepresented.

[Jim Sagle]

78. And now for the Times' reply:

Actually it's a non-reply, from [e-mail]:

Thanks for writing. Your message has been received and will be forwarded to the reporter. Because of volume, not all notes will be answered personally. But be assured that we want to hear your thoughts. Please do not respond to this email.

Maybe they stirred up a hornets' nest.