by TruthMatters, Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:42:14 AM EDT
by TruthMatters, Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM EDT
well he gave an interview to ABC to settle this once and for all
"A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me," he said. "But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that. Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you. The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark -- who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way -- both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flack jackets underneath the seat in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters. So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony. Now I say that because, what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."
as ABC already is pointing out
Hillary Clinton actually made the comments numerous times, including at events on Dec. 19 and 29 in Iowa, at an event on Feb. 29 and one time -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17.
maybe bill himself was tired?
After a trip to Puerto Rico and two days entirely off the campaign trail, former President Bill Clinton eagerly discussed myriad topics with the crowd that awaited him in Boonville, Ind.
this is why her trustworthy ratings are dropping.EDIT: here is ABC's full reply from below in the comments
While the former president may have been amused by the whole incident, his telling of the course of events isn't quite accurate. Sen Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., actually made the comments numerous times including at events on December 19th and 29th in Iowa, at an event on February 29th and one time - bright and early in the morning - on March 17th. Senator Clinton wasn't as quick with her apology as President Clinton may remember either. In fact, it took a week for her to eventually correct herself, first talking to the Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board on March 24th and again apologizing the next day in Greensboro, North Carolina.
by TruthMatters, Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:17:11 AM EDT
yes thats it I said it, for the most part not 1 person, especially not in the blogs or the media or the HRC campaign care about the actual Michigan voters.
I am tired of reading diary after diary, comment after comment PRETEND to care about the voters having a say, why cant everyone just be honest,
HRC Supporters - you want the votes to count because deep down you know without them Hillary is not going to win
BHO supporters - you want the notes not to count because deep down you know if they did there is a chance Hillary can win the pop. vote and thus give the supes cover to give her the nomination.
I know I know alot of you want to pretend to care right now that you care about the voters and this is about every voter having a say or some crap about one man - one vote
Fine 1 question then before you comment and say you REALLY do care about the actual voters.
What About Edwards Voters?
yep, simply NOT once have I seen a comment (though I could have missed it, feel free to link it) explain to me how to handle the Edwards voters. remember them?
We DON'T know the break down the uncommitted vote, so thus how do we insure the candidates who did take their names off the ballot get the right amount of delegates?
I know I know you want to argue well they took their names off thats their problem, no its not, remember YOUR argument is about the VOTERS not the candidates, thus if you REALLY cared about being fair then you would also say those who wanted Edwards and STILL went to the ballot to vote uncommitted for edwards deserve delegates, so how do they get their delegates? and more importantly if you don't care about Edwards delegates can you really argue you are fighting for the rights of those voters?
Also know now we can't just guess what percentage he gets, didn't everyone say that Hillary not getting 55% would not be fair because that doesn't represent her vote? Then in the interest of fairness must we not give Edwards and the rest the exact proportion of those voters who voted Uncommitted but wanted Edwards delegates? how is it "fair" for a Michigan solution that doesn't account for THESE voters? are they not important to anyone? do they not matter? and why is this the first diary to ask for Edwards Delegates?
Where are those Defenders of the fundamental right to vote on calling for Edwards delegates? and what about the others who took their names off? once again its not about the candidates, you can't say they took their names off so tough luck, Hillary's entire argument is whats fair to the VOTERS, meaning EVERY voter has to be taken into account no?
I will freely admit right now, I don't care about being fair to MI voters, tough cookies your state government screwed you over take it up with them.
but there are those of you who have the audacity to attack me and claim all you care about is being fair to the voters? well I call you a liar, thats right I flat out say that unless from now on you also FIGHT for the rights of those Edwards voters who went and voted for Edwards and anyone else who dropped off.
Unless you call for a way for them to get the exact amount they should get representative to the people who went to vote
Unless you stop claiming that you care about being fair to the voters, and not being fair to Hillary I call you a liar.
Make no mistake what is happening to MI and FL will not be fair to the voters in those states, but there is NO way to make it fair, at least not to those voters.
seating MI as is, is fair to Hillary, and that is fine to want but be honest and admit you want what you feel is fair to Hillary, but don't have stand here on a soap box and hide your partianship by pretending to care about the voters, Don't rail about the virtues of democracy and act like you are fighting some war to preserve our government and our fundamental right to vote, just don't.
Otherwise right here right now, YOU, the defender of the people, the champion of the voter. The person crying out "won't someone thing of the voters" You who freely throw around the word fairness, and blame everyone but your candidate, right here right now tell me
What is the fair solution in MI to the Edwards Voters?
I don't mean the candidate, he took his name off that his problem, I mean those voters who didn't ask him to take his name off, who STILL went to the polls who STILL voted for him by voting uncommitted. tell me what is THEIR fair solution?
or we can all be grown ups and admit its not about being fair to those voters, its about being fair to the Candidates, and its not all the candidates either, MI and FL are all about Hillary and Obama and thats it.
otherwise in the interest of "fairness" I think we should see a rally call for the EXACT number of voters who voted for Edwards by voting uncommitted be given their delegates
would this not be "fair"?
by TruthMatters, Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EDT
"You can tell a lot about a candidate by the campaign they run," Axelrod said.
who Hasn't said this in the last few months!? who? I have seen the jokes all over the internet, ready for Day 1 to be president but still not ready on day 400 to to run her campaign. I have no clue why he wasn't pounding this home with voters and supes all over the place.
If she has all this experience, then why is her campaign a disaster? well no more the Obama campaign is FINALLY going to start using this argument and start asking voters and more importantly the Supes to ask themselves 1 quesiton.
From how their campaigns were run, which would you want to run the Country?
And this is the pitch the Obama campaign is going to make in the weeks ahead, especially to those superdelegates who are still on the fence: Obama has run a good primary campaign, which is a sign that he will run a good general election campaign, and then a good presidency. Clinton, the Obama campaign will say, cannot make the same argument.
"Hillary is a bad manager," a senior Obama aide told me. "Does it really look like she could deal with the Republicans?"
Every uncommited delegate will now have to sit back and say, from the days she was the inevitable nominee to now vs. the days when Obama was an also ran to the likely democratic nominee who ran a better campaign? and what does that say about their administration?
Hillary has argued that only she can beat McCain, and only she can take on the GOP, yet she hasn't shown how she can take on the democratic nomination process. What she has shown is an inability to take responsbility, its Bill's Fault, or Penn's fault, or the Media's fault, or Obama's fault,
"I am not in any way declaring victory," Axelrod said. "One of the Clinton campaign's biggest mistakes was they declared victory months before the campaign began. But these campaigns are a test not just of a candidate's managerial skills but how they handle the vicissitudes of the process. It is a good barometer."
yes, to me this is THE arguement for Obama to make to supes, Hillary wants supes to base the decision that she is the Dems best choice on what? (not polls, delegates, states won, or the popular vote)
the question everyone has been asking is FINALLY getting asked to the supes.
What does the way the candidates have run their campaigns say about how they will run their administrations?
from this year forward, Obama has set the standard for how you run a presidential campaign, and alot of it we will see again in 2012 no matter who is running.
by TruthMatters, Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:24:42 AM EDT
ok on the confrence call today Howard wolfson finally settled this whole fired, resigned stepped down thing and gave us Mark Penn's new role with the campaign.http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/hillary_spokesperson_penn_stil.php#comments
Mark Penn isn't going anywhere.
On the Hillary campaign's conference call moments ago, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson left zero doubt: Camp Hillary will not be heeding the Obama campaign's demand that they fire Penn completely.
Asked about reports that Penn is still participating on internal campaign strategy calls, Wolfson said, "I'm not going to send out a daily email about who's on which calls and who isn't," clarifying: "Mark is no longer senior strategist, but he will be playing a continuing role in strategy."
Pressed by a reporter to explain the difference between Penn's former and current status, Wolfson said: "The difference would be between the editor in chief of your newspaper and one who plays an important role at your newspaper."
He added that "anyone at a workplace" would understand "the difference between someone who is playing the key role" and "someone who is playing an important role."
So there you have it: Penn will continue playing an "important" role.
so there you go, he is now in an "Important" role no longer a "Key" role. I think this is punishment enough and I hope he has learned his lesson.
by TruthMatters, Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EDT
I can see why she is "firing" him (read as less work, but same amount of money"
Here's an interesting postscript to the saga of Mark Penn, who stepped down from his role as Hillary's chief strategist yesterday:
Penn had an earlier version of the infamous 3 A.M. ad that was much more of a negative spot attacking Barack Obama, and the attack prompted objections from other senior Hillary advisers, a Hillaryland source familiar with internal discussions over the ad tells me.
Among those senior advisers who objected to the ad's negative content was senior ad guru Mandy Grunwald, who's clashed with Penn in the past, the source says.
so the 3 a.m. ad was meant to hit Obama directly but got toned down.
by TruthMatters, Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:41:40 PM EDT
so he was fired? errr demoted it seems, ok? so what does he do then for the campaign?
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Demoted Hillary Clinton strategist Mark Penn may no longer have the coveted title of chief strategist, but he remains a key member of the campaign's senior staff. Indeed, it is not clear precisely what Mr. Penn's demotion entails, other than a public rebuke."
"Mr. Penn took part on the campaign's morning message call this morning, as usual. This afternoon, he is also scheduled to be on a call with Clinton and other aides to begin to prepare for Saturday's presidential debate in Philadelphia. Mr. Penn 'is still going to be very much involved,' a senior campaign official said."
well thats taking a stand I guess, if someone does something she doesn't like or that may make her look bad, she will publicly rebuke you and take your title, but don't worry you wont actually be fired.
so the question really is,
Is Mark Penn still Chief Strategist with out a title?
by TruthMatters, Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:55:51 PM EDT
I loved that story, turns out it was just a story, I really like just about nothing from her campaign now.
Update [2008-4-5 23:0:3 by TruthMatters]: Did Clinton camp know story was false before Hillary told it again? http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/did-clinton-cam.html
A hospital in Ohio is disputing a story often told on the stump by Hillary Clinton, in which a woman was allegedly refused care over an inability to tender $100, and later died of complications from a stillbirth.
The hospital maintains that the woman in question was in the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with them when she died, and had never been refused service. They also say that the Clinton campaign never contacted them to check on the story. "We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," said the hospital's CEO.
Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said the campaign verifies the anecdotes that they are told. "In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it," Elleithee said. "If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."
Last night at around 9PM 9:45PM Eastern time, Hillary Clinton told a heartbreaking story about an uninsured pregnant woman who died -- along with her baby -- after being denied health care services because she didn't afford a $100 fee. Clinton has been telling the story for about a month, but as the New York Times reports, it turns out the salient feature of her tale was not true -- contrary to what Clinton claimed, the deceased woman actually did have insurance and did receive care. According to Google News, the New York Times published its article around midnight Eastern time last night, including a statement from the Clinton campaign accepting that the story was not true. Clinton spoke just about two hours before the NYT published its article Here's where my question comes: unless the NYT waited until after 9:45PM Eastern to contact the Clinton campaign -- a little more than two hours before the story was published -- then even as Clinton was telling the the story again, her campaign had already admitted it was false. This is something a reporter should follow up on -- was the Clinton campaign aware that Hillary Clinton's story was false before she told it? If so, why did she tell the story anyway? The worst part of all this is that our health care system is in crisis. There's plenty of true health care horror stories out there -- and when a presidential candidate tells false ones, it makes it that much harder to achieve the progressive change we all seek.
by TruthMatters, Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EDT
actually I dont know who is lying but, here is the real damage of the Bosnia gaffe, besides her supporters does anyone side with Hillary and say Bill Richardson is the one lying?
it Started with ABC reporting this
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Governer Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."
Mark Halperin reports that a Clinton Associate told him this
"Bill Richardson is clearly embarrassed that he broke his promise to them. He should come out and tell the truth and admit that he told both Clintons that Obama wasn't ready and can't win."
"The Governor never promised that he wouldn't endorse Obama," Richardson spokesperson Pahl Shipley emails me. "The Governor has never questioned Senator Obama's electability. He believes Barack Obama is the right person to lead this country and he will be America's next President."
"I have consistently made the case that I can win because I believe I can win, and you know sometimes people draw the conclusion I'm saying somebody else can't win," she said at a Burbank, California press conference.
Pressed further if she had said Obama can't win, Clinton said, "That's a no."
Earlier Thursday, citing sources with "direct knowledge of the conversation," ABC News reported Clinton once told Richardson, "He [Obama] cannot win, Bill. He cannot win
Update [2008-4-3 19:13:50 by TruthMatters]: CNN.com updated their story with this
UPDATE: A Hillary Clinton staffer tells reporters covering her campaign that the New York senator did not correctly hear the follow up question about whether or not she once told Bill Richardson she didn't think Barack Obama could win in a general election. The aide said Clinton thought she was being asked if she would divulge the private conversation that she had with Richardson and answered no.obviously then its Hillary saying, that she didn't NOT say he can't win, just that she wasn't answering that question. IE. She probably did say it.
by TruthMatters, Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:26:11 AM EDT
Watch as Florida Senate Democrat Leader Steve Geller presents a sarcastic amendment during the 2007 Legislative Session in an effort to "prove" to the Democrat National Committee that Florida Democrats are faithfully trying to abide by the national party's rules. What a joke! (though DNC Chairman Howard Dean probably didn't find Geller's sarcastic remarks very funny...)
really? I thought the GOP moved it up and the Dems try as they might couldn't do anything to stop it!
wow, yeah why aren't people calling the head of this guy?
wow Florida, your Dems really fought for you in this one didn't they.
hmm I wonder why Howard Dean isn't very accomdating to these guys? the whole laughing in his face to GOPers not go over well?