The NY Times’ Criminal Headline

Last week, the NY Times published a false, fake, made-up, lying-liar story about Hillary, claiming she was the target of a criminal investigation. She wasn’t. The sources were likely Gowdy’s lackeys. (But I don’t *know* that.) Here’s the link, but be advised, the story has been repeatedly “corrected” from it’s original really, really wrong form to a moderately incorrect form.

The Times also issued this useless Editor’s Note.

Rachel gave a scathing rant. Here’s what The Atlantic had to say (nothing flattering to the Times). Even dKos. (Still never ever getting a link from me.)

Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary’s campaign communications director, sent a letter to the Supreme Poobah Editor of the NY Times, Dean Baquet. VOX ran the whole letter as well.

Here’s the whole letter:

Dean Baquet
Executive Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York

July 28, 2015

Dear Mr. Baquet:

I am writing to officially register our campaign’s grave concern with the Times’ publication of an inaccurate report related to Hillary Clinton and her email use.

I appreciate the fact that both you and the Public Editor have sought to publicly explain how this error could have been made. But we remain perplexed by the Times’ slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times’ editors have made. We feel it important to outline these concerns with you directly so that they may be properly addressed and so our campaign can continue to have a productive working relationship with the Times.

I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story was. The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and removing “criminal” from the headline and text of the story.

To review the facts, as the Times itself has acknowledged through multiple corrections, the paper’s reporting was false in several key respects: first, contrary to what the Times stated, Mrs. Clinton is not the target of a criminal referral made by the State Department’s and Intelligence Community’s Inspectors General, and second, the referral in question was not of a criminal nature at all.

Just as disturbing as the errors themselves is the Times’ apparent abandonment of standard journalistic practices in the course of its reporting on this story.

First, the seriousness of the allegations that the Times rushed to report last Thursday evening demanded far more care and due diligence than the Times exhibited prior to this article’s publication.

The Times’ readers rightfully expect the paper to adhere to the most rigorous journalistic standards. To state the obvious, it is hard to imagine a situation more fitting for those standards to be applied than when a newspaper is preparing to allege that a major party candidate for President of the United States is the target of a criminal referral received by federal law enforcement.

This allegation, however, was reported hastily and without affording the campaign adequate opportunity to respond. It was not even mentioned by your reporter when our campaign was first contacted late Thursday afternoon. Initially, it was stated as reporting only on a memo – provided to Congress by the Inspectors General from the State Department and Intelligence Community – that raised the possibility of classified material traversing Secretary Clinton’s email system. This memo — which was subsequently released publicly — did not reference a criminal referral at all. It was not until late Thursday night – at 8:36 pm – that your paper hurriedly followed up with our staff to explain that it had received a separate tip that the Inspectors General had additionally made a criminal referral to the Justice Department concerning Clinton’s email use. Our staff indicated that we had no knowledge of any such referral – understandably, of course, since none actually existed – and further indicated that, for a variety of reasons, the reporter’s allegation seemed implausible. Our campaign declined any immediate comment, but asked for additional time to attempt to investigate the allegation raised. In response, it was indicated that the campaign “had time,” suggesting the publication of the report was not imminent.

Despite the late hour, our campaign quickly conferred and confirmed that we had no knowledge whatsoever of any criminal referral involving the Secretary. At 10:36 pm, our staff attempted to reach your reporters on the phone to reiterate this fact and ensure the paper would not be going forward with any such report. There was no answer. At 10:54 pm, our staff again attempted calling. Again, no answer. Minutes later, we received a call back. We sought to confirm that no story was imminent and were shocked at the reply: the story had just published on the Times’ website.

This was, to put it mildly, an egregious breach of the process that should occur when a major newspaper like the Times is pursuing a story of this magnitude. Not only did the Times fail to engage in a proper discussion with the campaign ahead of publication; given the exceedingly short window of time between when the Times received the tip and rushed to publish, it hardly seems possible that the Times conducted sufficient deliberations within its own ranks before going ahead with the story.

Second, in its rush to publish what it clearly viewed as a major scoop, the Times relied on questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering to seek corroborating evidence that could have supported its allegation.

In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had not personally reviewed the IG’s referral that they falsely described as both criminal and focused on Hillary Clinton. Instead, they relied on unnamed sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This should have represented too many “degrees of separation” for any newspaper to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all The New York Times.

Times’ editors have attempted to explain these errors by claiming the fault for the misreporting resided with a Justice Department official whom other news outlets cited as confirming the Times’ report after the fact. This suggestion does not add up. It is our understanding that this Justice Department official was not the original source of the Times’ tip. Moreover, notwithstanding the official’s inaccurate characterization of the referral as criminal in nature, this official does not appear to have told the Times that Mrs. Clinton was the target of that referral, as the paper falsely reported in its original story.

This raises the question of what other sources the Times may have relied on for its initial report. It clearly was not either of the referring officials – that is, the Inspectors General of either the State Department or intelligence agencies – since the Times’ sources apparently lacked firsthand knowledge of the referral documents. It also seems unlikely the source could have been anyone affiliated with those offices, as it defies logic that anyone so closely involved could have so severely garbled the description of the referral.

Of course, the identity of the Times’ sources would be deserving of far less scrutiny if the underlying information had been confirmed as true. However, the Times appears to have performed little, if any, work to corroborate the accuracy of its sources’ characterizations of the IG’s referral. Key details went uninvestigated in the Times’ race to publish these erroneous allegations against Mrs. Clinton. For instance, high in the Times’ initial story, the reporters acknowledged they had no knowledge of whether or not the documents that the Times claimed were mishandled by Mrs. Clinton contained any classified markings. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, none of the emails at issue were marked. This fact was quickly acknowledged by the IC inspector general’s office within hours of the Times’ report, but it was somehow left unaddressed in the initial story.

Even after the Times’ reporting was revealed to be false, the Times incomprehensibly delayed the issuance of a full and true correction.

Our campaign first sought changes from the Times as soon as the initial story was published. Recognizing the implausibility that Mrs. Clinton herself could be the subject of any criminal probe, we immediately challenged the story’s opening line, which said the referral sought an investigation into Mrs. Clinton specifically for the mishandling of classified materials. In response, the Times’ reporters admitted that they themselves had never seen the IG’s referral, and so acknowledged the possibility that the paper was overstating what it directly knew when it portrayed the potential investigation as centering on Mrs. Clinton. It corrected the lead sentence accordingly.

The speed with which the Times conceded that it could not defend its lead citing Mrs. Clinton as the referral’s target raises questions about what inspired its confidence in the first place to frame the story that way. More importantly, the Times’ change was not denoted in the form of a correction. Rather, it was performed quietly, overnight, without any accompanying note to readers. This was troubling in its lack of transparency and risks causing the Times to appear like it is trying to whitewash its misreporting. A correction should have been posted promptly that night.

Regardless, even after this change, a second error remained in the story: the characterization of the referral as criminal at all. By Friday morning, multiple members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (who had been briefed by the Inspectors General) challenged this portrayal—and ultimately, so did the Department of Justice itself. Only then did the Times finally print a correction acknowledging its misstatement of the nature of the referral to the Justice Department.

Of course, the correction, coming as it did on a Friday afternoon, was destined to reach a fraction of those who read the Times’ original, erroneous report. As the Huffington Post observed:

“…it’s unlikely that the same audience will see the updated version unless the paper were to send out a second breaking news email with its latest revisions. The Clinton story also appeared [on] the front page of Friday’s print edition.”

Most maddening of all, even after the correction fixed the description of the referral within the story, a headline remained on the front page of the Times’ website that read, “Criminal Inquiry is Sought in Clinton Email Account.” It was not until even later in the evening that the word “criminal” was finally dropped from the headline and an updated correction was issued to the story. The lateness of this second correction, however, prevented it from appearing in the paper the following morning. We simply do not understand how that was allowed to occur.

Lastly, the Times’ official explanations for the misreporting is profoundly unsettling.

In a statement to the Times’ public editor, you said that the errors in the Times’ story Thursday night were “unavoidable.” This is hard to accept. As noted above, the Justice Department official that incorrectly confirmed the Times’ initial reports for other outlets does not appear to have been the initial source for the Times. Moreover, it is precisely because some individuals may provide erroneous information that it is important for the Times to sift the good information from the bad, and where there is doubt, insist on additional evidence. The Times was under no obligation to go forward on a story containing such explosive allegations coming only from sources who refused to be named. If nothing else, the Times could have allowed the campaign more time to understand the allegation being engaged. Unfortunately, the Times chose to take none of these steps.

In closing, I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New York Times. But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have confidence that it is not repeated in the future.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Palmieri
Communications Director
Hillary for America

Cc: Margaret Sullivan,
Public Editor
New York Times

Wanna take action?

139 Responses

  1. And no, the NY Times did not publish Palmieri’s letter to the editor.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/highly-instructive

    News organizations botch stories. It happens. But the Times” behavior in this case has frankly been baffling. There are a lot of ancillary questions being pressed by the Democrats and the Hillary campaign – some relevant, some not, the biggest being whether the ridiculous Gowdy committee somehow had its hands in the story. Those questions are getting enough play elsewhere. I will simply say this: it is untenable to get a story this wrong on such a consequential issue and remain steadfast that your reporters and editors did nothing wrong. I don’t mean felony wrong, like someone has to be fired or hung out to dry. But you simply can’t say you made no errors. If you relied on “trusted” sources and they got it wrong so it’s their fault, well … your trust was at least partly misplaced. Again, by friggin’ definition.

    The Times has a checkered past reporting on the Clintons, to put it generously. If this had been about a Republican campaign, there would already been some sort of internal probe or review – at a minimum.

    Is the Times a generally liberal paper? Of course it is. But that doesn’t have a direct or obvious effect in a situation like this. It can actually lead to sloppy and unethical reporting, as it did in the Whitewater Era.

    The Times has a problem covering the Clintons. There’s no getting around that conclusion. It’s a longstanding problem. It’s institutional. I am really baffled as to why they can’t simply come clean on this one.

  2. I don’t know if it was Gowdy….or Valerie Jarrett. Both are equally scum.

  3. OT…RIP, Lynn Anderson

  4. Well, my guess would be Gowdy. The guy is not too bright but believes that Hillary is the devil and it is okay to lie about here because he’s lying for Jesus. The NYT should burn their source for lying so blatantly to them and then they should fire the reported who did not even call and check around to make sure there was anything.

    I have seen some people say she shouldn’t have written that letter because you don’t pick fights with the press but honestly could the coverage get any worse than it already is. Also remember Bill fought with the press and won.

  5. Ga6thDem, on August 1, 2015 at 12:06 AM said: I have seen some people say she shouldn’t have written that letter because you don’t pick fights with the press but honestly could the coverage get any worse than it already is.

    Which is EXACTLY why she should have called out the BS reporting by the NYT….fair warning to other media she won’t take this nonsense w/o a fight.

  6. Sophie, you rock! Thanks for the great post. I tried to retweet your one of your tweets, but not sure I did it right. I haven’t been on twitter in a few years.

    Ga6th & Voting, agree with both of you.

  7. You did it just right, socal!

  8. My money’s on Trés Gaudi being the source.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/29/voxs-jonathan-allen-implicates-trey-gowdy-in-th/204654

  9. FYI: From Valerie Harper’ verified Facebook account:

    9 hrs ·
    .

    My dear friends and fans!
    As always, thank you for your amazing support. I am happy to report I am not, nor have I been, in a coma.
    As anyone who has taken strong medication knows, it doesn’t always agree with you, even with me as this experience proves.
    I am confronting these hurdles with my usual enthusiasm and love of life.
    Much love, Valerie
    p.s.
    But I must confess that the highlight of this ordeal came when I was escorted by two handsome young men and a pilot, in a medivac helicopter, as the full moon lit the sky. Talk about movie magic!!!

  10. Speaking of the NYT. Maureen Dowd, Mo-Do, is at it again. I will not post link. She wrote an op-ed that asserted Beau Biden had urged Joe to run against Hillary. She spends the first part of the article slamming Hillary and comparing her to Tom Brady!

  11. MoDo is trending on Twitter today, and not in a good way.

  12. This is clever, combining two trends!

  13. Love those tweets! #hillarymen goes after Mo-Do:

    http://www.hillarymen.com/latest/maureen-dowd-karl-rove-anti-hillary-memes

    Voters need to understand that what they think they know about Hillary is often the result of sophisticated indoctrination techniques focus-grouped and deployed by shadowy GOP groups and magnified by the mainstream media and pundits.

    This is the subtext to Maureen Dowd’s new, vicious attack against Hillary. Dowd’s words are chosen meticulously – they fit perfectly into the narratives and frames that have been developed to smear Hillary over decades. Each of these terms is taken from Dowd’s new op-ed. Many are verbatim matches with our list of anti-Hillary memes:

  14. Once again, the Hillary Men nail it.

  15. Our so called “Press” is so convoluted, so dishonest, so inept, so malicious, and sooooooo LAZY that they even stoop to making up comatose situations. The only ones in a coma are the media. Useless bas-turds, all of them nepotistic morons, in jobs they are not qualified for, unless you include good hair, which is brought about by the set hair stylist. Words cannot express how totally FUBAR they are.

  16. Maureen Dowd gives journalism a worse name than it already has. She has a personal hatred of all things Clinton, and particularly Hillary, and she tries to pass it off as political commentary. And the Times lets her do it for over a decade. She makes “poison pen” look like a euphemism. Can she not find anyone or anything else to obsess about? She is in for a long next nine years, I do think.

  17. What a maroon Santorum is.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/250012-santorum-mocks-clinton-with-parody-website

  18. Sweater Vest is really pathetic.

    Rick “Empty Sweater Vest” Sanitarium.

  19. Watched CNN this afternoon, they did a hit piece on Hillary (because she’s rich), followed by a puff piece on Trump ( a regular guy who treats his women employees very well.)
    It’s surreal. Is it me or do the hillarymen sound depressed?
    It’s clear that the media is determined to stand in her way.

  20. She released a whole bunch of tax records, bring ing her total released to 38 years. She is rich. She pays a higher tax rate than the other rich folks and she and Bill give away a ton of money. Model citizens! If more of the 1% were like these two, there would be nothing but love for the 1%.

  21. Sue, yes, I did catch that sense of concern from Hillary Men as well.

    Well, we will get a test of whether the corporate media has such an oppressive stranglehold on our national discourse that they can turn the public for or against anything. If so, we’re pretty much doomed as a democracy. Because it looks as if we are going to get one negative Clinton story after another. But I do think that the reality of Hillary is so vastly superior to the media invention of Hillary, that it will shine through, once the real campaigning starts. Win the nomination, and it might be much smoother sailing, once we can get to what should be a very impressive convention, and beyond.

  22. Thanks, William, I actually feel better.

  23. Yes, Sophie, you’re right. But the tone of Poppy (hereafter named Poopy) Harlow and the reporter was that now that we all know that Hillary is rich, she can’t claim to understand the problems of average Americans.
    That was followed by an interview of a former Trump employee that presented him as a relatable joe who’s good to women employees and very paternal to the Miss USA contestants.
    Of course, Hillary is a pauper compared to Donald Trump but Poopy and guests didn’t think he had a relatablity problem, at all.

  24. This is what #hillarymen were talking about. There will be story after story like this yahoo news story:
    Draft Biden

    After raising $1 million for Barack Obama during his two presidential runs, New York businessman Jon Cooper was exactly the kind of high-powered political “bundler” Hillary Clinton wanted on her team during this year’s run.

    But after agreeing to serve as a “Hillstarter” — as the Clinton campaign had dubbed its elite fundraisers — Cooper sat down at his computer a few months ago to write a fundraising pitch for the former secretary of state … and froze.

    “I was trying to come up with a rationale for her candidacy — and I couldn’t do it,” Cooper tells Yahoo News. Clinton, he concluded, was “too calculating, too cautious, too controlled.”

    Notice the Rovarian buzz words? Wash, rinse, repeat…………………..

  25. It is amazing how such supposedly intelligent people could be so stupid.

    The rationale is that she is the most qualified person to run for president in decades. Presumably, we would want someone highly qualified to hold the office, instead of a figurehead or an unqualified person.

    Further, she is the one person who is capable of doing something about climate change.

    For Democrats, she is the one person who is willing to take on the Republicans in the Congress, and who is smart and competent enough to beat them. Electing a Democrat who ends up making the Republicans stronger, or who is not savvy enough to deal with them, is not going to do us much good at all.

    But of course being a millionaire does not mean that one knows anything about politics or issues or governance, as is well exhibited by Cooper’s inane statement.

  26. One more rationale for Cooper: She is the only Democrat who can win this election.

  27. William, Cooper has signed on to the “Draft Biden” group. He wants Biden. That’s just crazy talk.

  28. Just think of all the women Joe can grope and kiss as President. My guess, they already calculated that Bernie’s a loser so who else is left? It would be kind of fun to see the Feel The Berners Bern over this. All of this worries me not. What worries me is how stiff and monotone Hillary sounds. Reminds me of how she was in 2008 until New Hampshire. Seems her handlers are making the same mistake. She’s a mistake when she’s scripted. There, I said it.

  29. Yeah like Poppy wasn’t a trust fund baby. Besides her and Candy Creepy Crawly are rape apologists. Wait…wait, I got videos. I will update this comment… just for Poppy and Candy. Great names for women, I’m sure everyone takes them seriously in the back room..

    Candy and Poppy grieving uncontrollably for the Steubenville rapists: Not ONE word of sympathy for their victim!
    https://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/cnns-candy-crowley-and-poppy-harlowe-grieve-uncontrollably-for-the-steubenville-rapists/

    Hereeeeeeee’s Poppy! She’s outraged over your outrage! Read this! This woman will do ANYTHING to get the approval of the boys to keep her job.
    https://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/poppy-harlow-is-outraged-that-you-are-outraged-over-her-sympathy-for-rapists/

  30. I don’t think she sounds scripted. I loved her speech right before Jeb! went on where she blasted his, “Rise” message. I’ll look for it.

  31. I winced a couple of times, imust. Mostly when she addresses the email. She sounded very agitated and was more than a little caustic. Now I don’t blame her for being pissed, but she shouldn’t show it publicly until the right time. At any rate if she’s going to show it, why not just come out and ask where that investigation is for the MILLIONS of emails W Bush, D Cheney and K Rove deleted from THEIR private server during a presidency? They wiped the WHOLE GWB43 server!

  32. Uppity, you are almost certainly right regarding Hillary being more appealing when she is less scripted. The problem, of course, is that every single thing she says is parsed and reparsed by people looking for a misstatement, or something they can latch onto to attack her. No one else ever gets this scrutiny. So the tendency is to have her be over-cautious. But yes, she is more likeable and accessible when she is herself. I have seen some of that in this campaign, but have not seen her lately, so I hope this stiffness you note is just a lull in a grueling marathon.

  33. I always find her likeable. So maybe I’m really bias. She has to show all sides. She’s very passionate about things and there’s nothing wrong with that. Obama, remember, Mr. No Drama…he often seemed without affect, even when speaking about major human tragedies. The other side he showed was a passive aggressive side. So, I like seeing her speaking on policy, showing her vast intellect and knowledge, and when she speaks to children, showing her softer side…..I like all of it.

  34. But WIlliam, all that is true, but if she let’s it stifle her, it will hurt her not help her.

  35. Mmmmmmm Yummmmm make me pressy!


  36. Great post Sophie and of course the “paper of record” cannot find itself at fault. That couldn’t happen could it?

    I signed the petition also.

  37. Biden’s campaign could REALLY be called, like “feel the Bern”… “Feel the Biden”! Feel the Biden on your waist, feel the Biden on your shoulders, feel the Biden on your neck……

    Or maybe just….Biden feels…..

  38. America’s ideal First Family

  39. #OnceBidenTwiceShy

  40. Elijah weighs in with “Fool Me Once”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-elijah-cummings/fool-me-once_1_b_7917902.html

  41. And once again, Lily has earned her keep. Whew!

  42. I don’t worry about anything Maureen Dowd writes for two reasons. First, she is not a journalist,..she is merely a commentator on the same lines as Paul Krugman or Peggy Noonan. All are people making big bucks for basically being water-carrying boys/girls for their respective masters.

    Second, her column originates in that bastion of integrity…the NYT. I would say that her column belongs in the comic pages, but the NYT itself has become one big comic page.

    She is a joke, NYT is a joke and everyone save the far-left so-called progressives (unless it has to do with REAL women’s progress) knows they are a joke.

    ‘Nuff said.

  43. I do think that Hillary cannot afford to appear angry, or God forbid “strident,”
    It’s sexist and unfair but women don’t win that way,
    If we did, I and, I don’t know, Brassy Rebel would rule the world.
    What this country really needs, right now, is a Grandmother in Chief.
    So many people would get that.
    When Jane Tennison of “Prime Suspect” became the chief detective and none of her male underlings were respecting her, she realized that the way for a woman to lead men was not to act like a man but to “be mum.” That was a female leadership role that the men could accept.

  44. It doesn’t matter what she does or doesn’t do…..they will accuse her of something anyway. It’s a d@mned if you do d@amned if you don’t situation for her. The media will do their thing. All we can do is keep defending her and correcting the record where we can.

  45. NY Times didn’t ‘earn’ a Moody’s Junk Rating and have to be bailed out by Carlos Slim (at 14% loan shark rate)for nothing. They landed so under water they were charging for people to read their shitty editorials online. It’s the Titanic for printed news. They even had to sell their plane, they were that broke.

    If this blog is good for nothing else, it serves a valuable historic purpose. Don’t kid yourself. This so-called newspaper is living off a bailout that I’m sure is rapidly running out. They remind me of the grandchildren of Old Money who live like they are still rich but are losing the old rundown castle to creditors while still using their Titles.
    https://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/new-york-times-fire-sale-de-plane/

  46. “After raising $1 million for Barack Obama during his two presidential runs” : That should tell you Cooper had no intention from the start of fund-raising for Hillary.

  47. Sunday morning talk shows:
    Joe Biden. Calling him a “bombshell!” Seriously?

  48. The media, among other things, sells an election process like a sports event. They want competition, they want a cliffhanger result. They want headlines, “breaking stories,” “bombshells.”

    I guess people forgot how ineffectual Biden was as a Presidential candidate in….1988? It’s like baseball fans (and they always do this), demanding that some player who has been sitting on the bench be put in there–only because they haven’t seen him for a while and so are fantasizing about his ability. After a few weeks of him being the same nondescript performer he was before, they demand for him to go back to the bench. I’m not saying that Biden is comparable to a “bench player,” he has been a loyal and decent VP. But he is not much of a national candidate, and he won’t win a national election. The media will wring everything out of this that they can, though.

  49. It is on. 😆

  50. Joe or Bernie? roflmbo!!! 😆

    There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

    And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination,

    http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-surprise-for-democratic-party-2015-7

  51. I like this comment about Bernie. 😆
    ________________

    Sanders would be a nightmare for this country. And the number of people who are showing up to listen to him rant and rave scares the crap out of me.

    I keep expecting to see his eyes start spinning around. Maybe his head, too.

  52. Joe Biden 2016: if he runs, Bernie Sanders is finished
    http://dailynewsbin.com/news/joe-biden-2016-if-he-runs-bernie-sanders-is-finished/21373/

  53. Joe would be fun in the debates. I could imagine him teasing Bernie with, “a noun, a verb, and “billionaires.”

  54. Oh, Great Crazy Uncle Joe wants to run. Well between the NYT and the false story, the imaginary high negative ratings for HRC, shouldn’t chicks just get the drift– the White House is no place for a woman? Love these men in first world democracies-their view of women is just as archaic as the Taliban’s. Barf.

    Oh, I am sorry, you can run, just not win.

  55. Ann, there are at least as many female eligible voters as males. If women turn out for Hillary in force, she will win the nomination and very likely the election. The person at the NYT who most hates Hillary, and is apparently spending her life in a quest to deny her the presidency, is a woman. Hillary is odds-on to win the nomination, as long as she gets a large share of the female vote. I hope that women make a statement in this election by coming out in higher numbers than in past elections, and voting for Hillary. Obama got 98% or so of the Black vote IN THE PRIMARIES. They voted their racial ethnicity above all in that Democratic campaign.

  56. Except when females vote identity, most tend to vote with other groups they identify with, whether ethnic, senior, ability, LGBT, religious, and so on.

    At least half of the women who would vote based on gender, still aren’t voting exclusively based on gender. (The “I want a woman president, just not this one” club.) AAs are far more organized than women, as a group, generally speaking and when AA people started pulling that in 2008 (“Is he black enough?”), they were told to get in line and they did. I don’t see that happening with women any time soon.

  57. My first and last comment. What a huge mistake HRC is making. She does not need to be president. She does not have to deal with the craps now. Even if she wins, she will be one lonely president, The GOP controls both chambers especially the house. W/o the blue dogs, the gop will be in control for a long time and they will not help her pass anything. The remaining lefties will not help her either. You think Pelosi will help her? She and Bill are rich and are making easy money. She can have any jobs she wants. She can sit on the board of any major companies. etc..She has done enough. Let Biden run. Let the rape fantasizer Sanders run. There is still time for her to withdraw. I was a big supporter of her but I lost interest after 2008 and have not voted since. The democratic party is dead. I don’t even recognize the party and its people anymore.

  58. You’re right stargate, she doesn’t have to. But she is. And i support her. She will not withdraw–she is not a quitter,

  59. Right Sophie. She does not need to be president, but WE NEED her to be president. This country needs her and she is a public servant in every sense of the word. Anyone who doesn’t know that, doesn’t know Hillary Clinton, and never really supported her.

  60. Hillary runs because she cares about the country, and she believes in public service She isn’t in it for the glory or the power or even to make history. She wants to make the country closer to the ideals she has for it. For everybody, including her daughter and grandchild.

    There are far too many people in this country, most of them fairly affluent and comfortable, who act like this is a video game that you can just turn off and play another one. Hillary is a fighter, even though others are not. You suggest that we should just all give up and let the Republicans run the country. Hillary does not. Hillary cares, even if some others cannot be bothered.

    Frankly, anyone who says, “I was a big supporter of Hillary in ’08, but then I lost interest, and now I don’t care,” is very hard to take at face value.. Imagine if everybody did that; lost an election, and then gave up, and urged the best candidate to withdraw, because gee, it is not worth the effort. That of course is how the Fascists took over much of Europe: people were disillusioned. or self-indulgent, or couldn’t be bothered.

    My belief is that Hillary is going to win the election, and become President. And that she will not take your suggestion and figure that she can’t accomplish anything, anyway; but will do everything she can to educate the populace as to the Republicans’ tactics, and try to turn the tide. And use every power at her disposal to make things better. That’s more than worth it, even for the portion of Democrats who can’t wait to throw in the towel. My parents had to go through Eisenhower, and Nixon, and Reagan, and both Bushes, and they still cared, and they still voted, and they still watched the political shows together. Of course, that was a different generation. They managed to defeat fascism, though–at least until the time that too many people cave in to it, because it seems hopeless or too effortful for them to fight it.

  61. yes, Imust!

  62. “I lived through them through eight years. I know what they are capable of.” I’ve never forgotten Hillary’s statement during the debates with Obama (who spent much of his first four years playing patty-cake with the GOP while they repeatedly kicked him in the balls)

  63. Hillary’s first campaign ad, Dorothy:

  64. Hillary is a true blue Patriot, that’s what her opponents and the pundits don’t get.
    She’s the real deal.

  65. Chelsea looks so much like her grandmother.

  66. I just put a comment on wrong thread. DAMN! The gist is Biden doesn’t seem to be preparing to run. It’s just “an August story.” Thank God!

    And Hillary is the only candidate since Teddy Kennedy (who killed someone) who needs a rationale to run for president. Generally speaking, a penis is sufficient “rationale”.

  67. Joe and Bernie are in the wrong party??

    It is the Republican’s that is the party of
    “Old White Men” 😆

  68. The CRAZY, Old White Men Party.

    Bernie still refuses to call himself a Democrat to satisfy NH ballot requirement. Even someone at Daily Kooks comnented, “And he wants to be head of the Democratic Party?”

  69. Rumor or not, to exploit his dead son is simply despicable. Does anyone REALLY believe that in the throes of DEATH, his son was worried about the White House? Anyone who has EVER watched someone die –of BRAIN CANCER of all things—knows better. Bleck!

  70. Yes Uppity, and I’ve noticed that when CNN reports the story, even when they don’t mention Beau Biden, they show footage of Beau and Joe, lest we forget.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A top political aide to Vice President Joe Biden’s late son joined the super PAC working to recruit the elder Biden to run for president on Sunday, lending the group newfound credibility in the midst of fresh signs the vice president’s aides are taking a close look at a 2016 campaign.

    Will Pierce, who runs the Draft Biden super PAC, said he was thrilled about Alcorn’s move because Joe Biden’s supporters throughout the U.S. “know how close he was to Beau and his family.

    Will the slogan be: “Vote for Joe, do it for Beau”??

  71. Up, look at how much mileage that creep, John Edwards, got out of his dead son. And leaking slimy sludge about “Biden values” to Mo Do to imply something wrong with Hillary values! If Biden is behind this, “Biden values” are very lacking. He always claims to “love” Hillary. Maybe that’s just to enable his chronic “manhandling”.

  72. Brassy, how is Kooks these days? I stopped looking at them when they became HillBashingCentral in 2008. Is it now 100% Bernieville?

  73. Biden values. He got knocked out of the 88(?) presidential election because he got caught plagiarizing.

    Let us not forgot his behavior doing the Anita Hill hearings…”Women are like that….”

    And he’s the guy who set it up for his Delaware charge card buddies to not be affected by bankruptcies. What a guy!

  74. “Beau made me do it!”

  75. Anybody seen Hillary’s new ads yet?

  76. GWM4Hill, Kooks is actually better. Even that POS, Kos himself has offered an olive branch. He’s trying to grow the website and realizes he must expand the demographics which are overwhelmingly white, affluent, and male. I’m keeping an open mind. They seem to be trying to cover all Dem candidates fairly. Sanders does have more support, but Hillary has more support there than you’d expect. There are still websites where I won’t go: Huff Po and Dem Underground to name two. But I confess to checking out the Kooks regularly. Hillary is 44 is Republican, I’m convinced. YIKES!

  77. Yeah, I think Hillary is 44 has jumped the shark. The last time i looked at that website it looked like it was advocating for the GOP. I think Trump might be their candidate these days.

    Draft Biden? Well, that will probably be somewhat more successful than the Draft Warren movement since Biden is at least considering it. I don’t know why he doesn’t just go ahead and say one way or the other. Most people in the party say that if he was going to run he should have announced that he was considering running last year.

    Of course Joe could go on another suicide mission. I have to wonder though if it’s not a repeat of 2008 where the party does not want to nominate a woman. So some are pushing Biden because they know nobody else is a viable candidate even though Biden would be considered barely viable.

  78. I can’t believe that Joe Biden thinks he is a viable option. The man ran for president twice before, had to pull out the first time due to plagerism issues, and suffers from verbal diarrhea not to mention a questionable ability to keep his hands to himself without rubbing another man’s wife down ala Stephanie Carter.

    This is the same man who was the head of the Senate judiciary committee that roasted Anita Hill over the coals and everything she said of Clarence Thomas has been proved true.

  79. I know one thing: if there’s a problem ( and there’s not!), Biden is not the solution. The GOP puts its talking point out there; corrupt corporate media like NYT blasts out that Hillary is not honest and trustworthy; Dems panic, dump Hillary for Biden, and GOP mission is accomplished. They do not want to face Hillary in general election. Enter the bufoonish Biden right on cue!

  80. Does anyone of the Media geniuses mention that Joe Biden is five years older than Hillary?
    If I read or hear about “Hillary’s faltering campaign” one more time, I’ll commit mayhem.
    I guess that the Republicans and Media think that if they say it often enough, it will be true.
    No.

  81. Doesn’t matter how old Joe is. He could be a cadaver, it doesn’t matter. Because, Penis.

    Doesn’t matter he had a cerebral hemorrhage either. Because her health is an issue, not his. Because, Penis.

  82. Dang if we aren’t on the same wavelength, Euro

  83. Has anybody check this?
    The Washington Post
    Hillary Clinton’s Sandy Berger problem
    What do you make of this?

  84. Just think, Sue, Hillary announced in April? And now her campaign i faltering in August, five months before even a caucus vote? I’m surprised they waited that long to use that pejorative.

    Adjectives and other parts of speec we can get used to seeing, along with faltering. Struggling, embattled, contentious, caldulated, peevish, inconsistent message, poll-driven, rudderless, changing approach.

    Any eighth grade journalism student knows or learns that the use of loaded words can have an effect. A good journalist does not use such words precisely because of that; it is cheap, shallow, and clearly agenda-driven, which journalism should not be. The media of today is made up of poseur jounalists who appear to make bets with their friends as to how much they can influence the public narrative by the use of connotative terms. Or maybe it is simply that they are paid off, in noney or cozening, by the Republicans.

  85. Bellecat, I make very little of it. It is another of the tired themes that get dredged up every time a Clinton is in the spotlight. If I had a dollar for every time I read a headline titled “Hillary’s ___ problem,” I would be exceedingly rich.

    It is quite something; all the other candidates go along and are discussed in terms of their political stance; while Hillary, just like Bill, seems to have to carry the baggage of any person whom they might have encountered in the last forty years.

  86. They are comparing Hillary’s emails (the ones supposedly classified) on her home server to Sandy Berger taking classified documents from the National Archives library several years ago. this is akin to Mo-Do comparing her to Tom Brady.

    Hasn’t it also been determined that none of the emails were classified when she was dealing with them? Then like, four of them where declared classified recently?

  87. 538’s take on a Biden run
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/joe-bidens-potential-2016-presidential-campaign/

  88. Just scroll to the graph!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/21/bernie-sanders-needs-every-vote-he-can-get-and-it-looks-like-hes-not-getting-bidens/

  89. There’s Hillary Clinton, then there’s daylight, then Sanders and then Biden.

    ROFL!

  90. Great links Sophie!

  91. I don’t think that Hillary is being relentlessly attacked primarily because she is a woman, but because she is the biggest threat to Republicans since Bill Clinton, who also was viciously attacked virtually every day. Do you remember the draft issue, which was the lead media story for two months, running right into the New Hampshire primary? Every little question about how he got his deferment, something that is never asked about any other candidate? And then of course all the Gennifer Flowers nonsense. And his possible use of marijuana, and all the laughing about “I didn’t inhale.” And his war protesting in England. This was all before he won the nomination.

    Clinton hatred is a strange but real thing. In the case of Hillary, she is the one threat to the Republicans. They will do everything to destroy her. If she wins, they lose the Supreme Court. She will also completely marginalize the Tea Party group. If the Democrats win the Senate back on her coattails, she will likely push to end the current filibuster rules. They fear her and they hate her, and they will try to do to her what they tried to do to her husband. If there were an innocuous woman candidate for the Democrats who had no chance of winning, she would pretty much be left alone; in fact, people would bend over backward to prove that it wasn’t women they were so much against, it was just Hillary Clinton. All the foolish Democrats who are hesitating about supporting Clinton do not seem to understand that she represents their best chance in the last 50 years to give them what they always claim they wanted: a strong Democratic leader who will actually battle the Republicans on every necessary issue.

  92. William, if all the vitriol against Hillary was coming from the right, I would be fine with that. But most if it, and the worst of it, is coming from the Left. And I still hate Lawrence O’Donnell.

  93. Sophie I don’t know if the stuff coming from the left is any worse but I would say it sounds just as bad. I mean the people on the left criticizing Hillary sound identical to Rush Limbaugh.

  94. Sophie, yes, O’Donnell is very irritating. Of course, he has had a dislike of both Clintons for decades. One would have hoped that he would ahve gotten over it, but apparently these types never do. To seem him apologize over and over for Obama during these last several years, and then to give Hillary no margin whatsoever, is sickening.

    And no, we cannot parse it; maybe much of it is sexism, who can say for sure? But the Left seems to love Warren. The Left is now almost completely populated by bitter, supercilious people who have no idea how governing works, and who are in love with political martyrdom as opposed to actually electing someone who will actually do something and fight the Republicans. The classic comment by one of them was something along the lines of, “Sure, Hillary is saying some good things; but Obama lied to us, so Hillary is probably doing so, too.”

  95. Great links, Sophie, thanks!

  96. Hillary needs to keep talking about the issues that matter. And that is exactly what she is doing.

  97. Sophie, you can add pretty much the whole of MSNBC “commentators”. I will never forget or forgive the rampant sexism Hillary had to endure from them and I am sure she will throughout the primary this time as well.

  98. Planned Parenthood helped me when I had my first cancer scare back when I was in graduate school. I had no health insurance and no other place to turn to for important tests. Planned Parenthood was there when I needed them. They are a vital resource for women’s healthcare and must be protected. Hillary understands that.

  99. The sexist Clinton-hating media are going to drive us crazy before this election is over if we let them take over the conversation. Reduce the NYT and MSNBC to what they are: marginal entities that few people even listen to or read. Don’t magnify them.

  100. Speaking of the NYT , we ladies finally have an answer as to why we are usually freezing our asses off at our workplaces.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/science/chilly-at-work-a-decades-old-formula-may-be-to-blame.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

  101. The Left is now almost completely populated by bitter, supercilious people who have no idea how governing works, and who are in love with political martyrdom as opposed to actually electing someone who will actually do something

    William, they sound an awful lot like the “Tea Party.”
    A pox on both their houses.,

  102. Sophie@8:55 PM: Great link. Very encouraging!

  103. VotingHillary@12:23 AM: Why should the old formula have to change just to please nagging freezing women? That formula was good enough for our fathers and their fathers before them! So what if women have to wear full-length parkas with blankets wrapped around them at work in August? Big deal. What will they be complaining about next? Unequal pay? Harassment? Access to reproductive health care? Sheesh, women. They are never satisfied.

  104. Love the new Hillary videos! I would be shocked if Biden decides to run. Losing a child is a devastating blow that cripples your life for at least the first few years. I can’t imagine someone taking on a grinding ordeal like running for president, or being president, right after losing their son.

  105. Sue I haven’t found much difference in my disgust and disdain for the Far Left and the Far Right since 2008. They are both idealogically insane and mean. Very very very mean small self-indulgent hateful people. And when it comes to treating women like humans with human rights, there is NO difference between them, but that the left pretends to care and the right doesn’t even bother. I am frankly sick of being legislated by either of them. Fuck em, I hate them as much as they hate me.

  106. I love this interview with Hillary. It’s done in a very relaxed setting. She’s able to show her compassion and warmth as well as her amazing understanding of the issues.

  107. I hear you, Uppity. I loathe the purity crowd, too.
    As far as air conditioning goes, I’m the one who’s always cranking it up.

  108. I found this link on Still4Hill.

    Who cares what the NYT writes or MSNBC whines on about? MoDo can go crying to her therapist. O’Donnell can take a flying leap. The bookies say it will be Hillary in 2016!

    http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president

  109. HillaryMen’s new essay cites Uppityville’s good friend Anita Finlay. Yay, Ani!!!

    http://www.hillarymen.com/latest/hillary-is-punching-hard-and-landing-blows

  110. That #hillarymen article was very positive, thanks Beata. So was the bookies info!

  111. You can keep the pundits. I’m going with the bookies!

    And once again, HillaryMen put everything in perspective. All the attacks, lies, and smears are launched not because she’s weak but because she’s strong. Dogs don’t bark at parked cars. As HillaryMen point out, in her recent appearances, Hillary has been very effective–making her detractors even crazier than usual.

  112. The punch leveled at Jeb! for prattling on about “the right to rise” LANDED HARD. His campaign’s silly response proves that.

  113. Here is Hillary’s impassioned speech to the National Urban League. She calls out Jeb! on his “right to rise” hypocrisy at around 14:15 in this video:

  114. An audience member at the Urban League speech told BuzzFeed that, “She was more comfortable than Ben Carson. And he’s black!”

  115. Thanks, Beata, that was a good, bracing read at HillaryMen.

  116. Ben Carson is also a neurosurgeon. He was an excellent one before he retired. Neurosurgeons are usually aloof and arrogant. Almost God-like in their opinions of themselves. Not exactly comfortable talking to “lesser beings” ( meaning everyone else who inhabits the planet ) . Unfortunately, I know this from considerable experience.

  117. The talking heads keep saying, “she’s doing badly in the polls!!!!” NO! SHE’S NOT! SHE’S WAY AHEAD!!!!!!!!
    Then they point to her “favorability” or “trust” polls……okay….BUT SHE’S STILL WAAAAAAY AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!

    GEEZ!!!!

    Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

  118. From the “Department of Way Too Much Information”:

    Chris Christie, at a New Hampshire diner this morning, told the crowd that even though he is a Catholic, he has used birth control and “not just the rhythm method”.

    There is no exact count of how many diners promptly lost their breakfast following Christie’s remarks but extra clean-up help was reportedly needed.

  119. A little email for you, Uppity.

    Imust, yes, it is rather palpable, isn’t it? It is as if someone is going to fire them if they actually say anything positive about Hillary’s campaign. If there happens to be a sliver of good news, it is quickly countered by a, “however…” It is also as if the media has a preconceived narrative, and the actual facts are not allowed to come in to dilute it. Some of it is that they hate Hillary. Some is that they think their goal should only be to get people to watch them, and thus they have to make the race sound very close and fluid, like a sports event. On both counts, it is a pathetic abdication of journalistic ethics.

  120. I’ll take this opportunity to post my favorite Springsteen song. Just because, brain bleach.

  121. Chris Christie doesn’t need birth control. His penis disappeared into the folds long ago.

  122. WILLIAM!

    Please check your email. I sent you an invite to be an editor. You will have to accept it in the email address you use on wordpress, so I sent it to both your emails. Then I will be able to post your essay under your name.

    Correction: Accept it in both your email addresses as I think wp is confoozled.

  123. If William becomes an editor, will he be able to leave me in spam forever when I become “Because Penis” again?

  124. Well um…yeah.

  125. Take care going forward, Upps. xo

  126. LOL!

  127. SCREETCH!!!! New post up!

  128. Love you, Upps! Thanks for the kitteh advice over the years, and of course, all you have done to help Hillary!

  129. Beata, I have no computer skills, and thus would not know how to do anything like that. And I wouldn’t, even if I could. I just will write essays from time to time, so have no concerns

  130. Dear Because Penis,
    I will fish you out of spam. I am the Grand Water Buffalo.

  131. She’s just kidding William.

    I think.

  132. I think it is better that I go, William. You take care, too, and keep writing. I have always encouraged you to do that. Your talent is obvious to everyone who reads your essays. Uppity is a good person to help you get your message across to as many people as possible. Take advantage of this opportunity and learn as much from her as you can.

    Hillary in 2016!

  133. Hey what happened here, Beata? I thought you were kidding.

  134. *Scratching my head* Somebody’s going to have to splain what was done here.

  135. Beata come back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  136. Chris Christie doesn’t need birth control. His penis disappeared into the folds long ago.

    It’s comments like these the demonstrate the need for this blog to have Like buttons for comment.

  137. lol Sophie. There is truth in satire.

Comments are closed.