"The world would be better off if we did leave"

Thus Spake Zaratwoface

Radio Fun

I'll be on the Majority Report in a few minutes. Go here to listen.

Just for Fun

Hmmm....

Juvenile

Kerry takes on the "I didn't do it" kid.

Go Vote!

Democracy for America wants you to vote for your favorite candidates.

Lisa Myers Still Has a Job

Another thing people could have written to Romenesko about. Here's a Lisa Myers flashback from the Howler.

At issue is the phone call where the Hubbells are discussing whether Mrs. Clinton would be “vulnerable” to a probe of over-billing. Here is the transcript of one part of the call, with one statement set out in bold:

MRS. HUBBELL: You didn’t actually do that, did you, mark up time for the client?

HUBBELL: Yes, I did. So does every lawyer in the country.

MRS. HUBBELL: That would be one thing that you would look into the firm for [in a countersuit].

HUBBELL: Suzy, you are getting ahead.

MRS. HUBBELL: No, I am just thinking out loud. That’s an area where Hillary would be vulnerable. Not unless she overbilled by time, right?

HUBBELL: No, you are talking and not listening. We are on a recorded phone. So I am trying to explain...

It’s not clear what Hubbell objects to in his wife’s characterization, or why she still doesn’t know even basic facts about why her husband is sitting in prison. But it is quite clear, in the segment printed in bold, that Mrs. Hubbell is not accusing Mrs. Clinton of over-billing. She states first that she is “just thinking out loud;” and it is clear to any listener, when she closes out with her question, that she doesn’t know whether or not Hillary has engaged in this conduct. (Hubbell tells her at length, later in the call, that Hillary has not over-billed.)

But that’s not the way NBC viewers heard the response on The Today Show on Friday, May 1, by the time Spin Doctor Lisa Myers got out her scissors and did a little surgical work on the tapes. Incredibly, this is the conversation that Myers’ viewers heard--a conversation in which Mrs. Hubbell makes a very different presentation altogether:

MYERS: At another point, Mrs. Hubbell talks about over-billing clients.

MRS. HUBBELL (on tape): That’s an area where Hillary would be vulnerable.

HUBBELL (on tape): No, you are talking and not listening. We are on a recorded phone.

And that is precisely the way the transcript was presented on the screen to NBC viewers as the tape rolls--with no ellipsis whatever to let viewers know that material has been left out. Not that this would have been an appropriate deletion even if an ellipsis had been used. Myers’ cut in the tape completely changes the meaning of the presentation by Mrs. Hubbell--changing it from a question about whether Mrs. Clinton would be vulnerable, to an assertion that she would be. The charade was even worse by that evening; in a tape played on MSNBC’s May 1 InterNight program (apparently taken from that evening’s NBC News), Myers doctors the conversation in a more egregious fashion:

MYERS: The Hubbells seem worried that Mrs. Clinton could be vulnerable on an issue that sent Hubbell to prison in the first place--overbilling clients.

MRS. HUBBELL: You didn’t actually do that, did you? Mark up time for the client? Did you?

HUBBELL: Yes, I did. So does every lawyer in the country.

MRS. HUBBELL: That’s an area that Hillary would be vulnerable.

HUBBELL: Suzy, you’re talking and you’re not listening. We are on a recorded phone, OK?

Again, there was absolutely no indication of any kind that the viewer was hearing an edited phone call. Viewer had every reason to think they were hearing the phone call just as it happened. And by the way, Myers’ opening statement is completely inaccurate, if you listen through to the end of this phone call. Hubbell makes it very clear, later on in this call, that Mrs. Clinton would not be vulnerable to charges of over-billing clients.

And, let's not forget what she did to Howard Dean.

Bernard Shaw Debate Question

Bush, various times:

"I hug the mothers and the widows of those who may have lost their life in the name of peace and freedom." - February 10, 2003

"I'm the person in this country that hugs the mothers and the widows if their son or husband dies." - February 10, 2003

"I understand what it means to put somebody into combat. I know what it means to hug mothers and wives." - January 29, 2003

"There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids on the death of their loved ones...Having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug." - December 2002

Danny Boy, this morning:

He's the one who hugs the widows and consoles the families of those who have sacrificed for this very great cause.

Debate question:

Mr. Bush, just how many widows have you hugged?

They Get Letters

To Romenesko:

From JOHN ROYAL: I find the hand wringing over the Dan Rather-George W. Bush interesting. I recall that sometime in the mid-90s, at the heart of Whitewater, that "Nightline" ran a story, with commentary by Jeff Greenfield, that used video of Hillary Clinton supposedly admitting to something that she'd been saying she hadn't done. Of course, it wasn't until much later that it was learned that ABC had doctored the video and that Ms. Clinton was actually saying something quite different.

So, I wonder. I notice that Ted Koppel and Jeff Greenfield still have jobs, but was anybody from ABC dismissed over that matter? And if not, then why should Rather or Mapes or anybody at CBS be out of work for what appears to be an honest mistake and not a deliberate act like ABC's video editing?

He's sure the truth will come out
9/22/2004 2:04:29 PM

From TOM NAWROCKI: Last night on "Hardball," Chris Matthews said, "You believe particularly that the role of the former lieutenant governor, Ben Barnes, who says now that he helped put together that sweet billet for the president back in the Guard back all those years ago, having said the opposite before." This is of course, untrue, since Barnes testified in 1999 that he had indeed pulled strings for Bush to get him into the Guard. Barnes didn't say "the opposite" before; he said the same things he subsequently told Dan Rather.

But I am not worried that the truth will come out in this case. I'm sure by the end of the day, there will be calls for Matthews to resign, stories about depression overtaking MSNBC's news operations, and Howard Kurtz wondering why "Hardball" is taking so long to correct such an obvious error.

Agreed

The Kerry campaign needs to stop with the whiny "this is outrageous!" or "you must repudiate it!"

Punch back.

Home Stretch

Kos is kicking ass on the fundraising front and making me look bad.

Show a little love to Stan and Patsy!

Or, here's what Trippi suggests:

Last week we had a conference call with a group of bloggers and I talked about how, I feel, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gets a bad rap. Of all the DC committees, it covers the most ground and moves the fastest. When a congressional campaign hits the panic button, the DCCC swings in to action, swoops down and spends a lot of money in a district - and we get closer to a Democratic Congress.

I remember working on Tim Holden's race last cycle in Pennsylvania. It was a tight, tough race - and when the going got rough, when it was really down to the wire, the DCCC managed to find some more money to help us pull through. We ended up winning - but it had everything to do with the DCCC's willingness to pull out all the stops at the last minute.

Politics is a fickle business, and it's nearly impossible right now to say where the trouble is going to be a week or two out from November 2. Some seats that seem completely safe right now are going to be in jeopardy, while other seats that seemed a real long shot will become slam dunks. The DCCC has to be quick enough to see the tide turning, jump on opportunities, and re-distribute resources. It's function is pretty unique compared to other political committees.

I think he's right. I'm always supportive of people donating to their favorite candidates directly, but it's also true that the DCCC does have a unique position at this point in the election season. House races can change very fast, in a way that other races generally don't (barring a candidate meltdown of some sort).

The role of the DCCC (and its Republican counterpart) is to be the bonus cards in this election. Your opponent knows you have them, but they don't know when and where you're going to play them. The DCCC can suddenly throw money into a race that the Republicans thought was safe, and they have to have some money in the pot to react if the Republicans try to throw a nuke onto another race.

They provide the election surprises, and the more money they have the more they can do. And, given campaign finance laws, they're really the only organization that can play this role.

You can donate to them here. People regularly ask where the "best" place to send money is right now. I don't think there's one answer to that -- but a case can definitely be made for the DCCC. I set up a pretty big fundraising goal. I don't know if we'll hit it, but I think it's important.

Whoring for Fox, Whoring for Bush

Blitzer and Greenfield:

BLITZER: I think you're right.

By the way, one footnote before I let you go, we're going to continue our coverage on this. Jeff, do you remember the name of the news organization that, before the last election in 2000, reported that George W. Bush was arrested for -- supposedly for drunk driving?

GREENFIELD: Well, one of them was FOX News.

BLITZER: That's correct, FOX News. Because you had suggested earlier, if you could imagine FOX News Channel reporting this -- well, they did, to their credit, report that before the last election.

So much is wrong here. First, here's the supposed drunk driving arrest.

Secondly, it wasn't reported by Fox News, it was reported by Fox News Affiliate, which is Not The Same Thing.

The truth is that it was a resourceful 27-year-old reporter at a local Fox affiliate, WPXT-TV in Portland, Maine, who uncovered the DUI story, not the Fox News Channel in New York or Washington, the partisan national network that's the focus of Robert Greenwald's new documentary, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism." Nobody associated with "Outfoxed" or elsewhere participating in the media debate has suggested that local Fox news teams in places like Bakersfield, Calif.; Birmingham, Ala.; or Boise, Idaho operate under Republican marching orders as they cover arsons, car crashes and zoo openings. So it's not that unusual that an enterprising reporter, operating off the FNC reservation as it were, could play a starring role in the DUI story. Not surprisingly, Ailes and Cameron are now conveniently trying to pretend that it was Sean Hannity's "Fair and Balanced" Fox News, those bold seekers of the truth, who unearthed the damaging dirt on Bush that almost cost him the election.

And CNN wonders why its ratings are in the toilet...

(thanks to reader j)

Block Party on Sunday

From a reader:

A few of us center city residents are having a block party event for Hoeffel on Sunday, Sept. 26th 3-6 PM. Its a fund raiser, effort to attract volunteers & get the word out on Joe. Hoeffel will speak around 4 PM. We're inviting anyone around the Philly area to come. Its being held at Kahn Park, 11th & Pine.

Know the Players

Holden tells us about our newly indicted friends in Texas, and tells us about Westar.

...Kuffner has more.

Tabloid Fun

Don't forget to buy the Enquirer on Friday...

...oops, don't forget to buy it now! Already on newstands...

Caving Update

Now they're saying they're not caving.

Lyons

Link:

I saw pundit Andrew Sullivan on CNN clucking over CBS’ mistakes. In 1994, when Sullivan edited The New Republic, it ran a cover story accusing Bill Clinton of corruptly enriching his wife’s law firm by changing Arkansas usury laws as governor. In fact, the deed was done by public referendum under Clinton’s Republican predecessor.

On Dec. 19, 1995, ABC News’ "Nightline" aired a deceptively edited video clip of a Hillary Clinton press conference about Whitewater. It accused her of lying about the very information electronically deleted from her remarks. No consequences followed.

On May 4, 1996, The New York Times published an article with a deceptive Associated Press byline stating that an FBI agent’s trial testimony described a $50,000 windfall to Whitewater from an illegal loan. As the actual AP article stipulated, the agent gave no such testimony. Many accusatory editorials and columns followed, helping Kenneth Starr to prolong his fruitless investigation of Bill Clinton’s finances for years. The Times has never acknowledged its blunder.

The Nightline story has always been one of my favorites. Your SCLM at work...

Even more damning was a "Nightline" report broadcast that same evening. The segment came very close to branding Hillary Clinton a perjurer. In his introduction, host Ted Koppel spoke pointedly about "the reluctance of the Clinton White House to be as forthcoming with documents as it promised to be." He then turned to correspondent Jeff Greenfield, who posed a rhetorical question: "Hillary Clinton did some legal work for Madison Guaranty at the Rose Law Firm, at a time when her husband was governor of Arkansas. How much work? Not much at all, she has said."

Up came a video clip from Hillary's April 22, 1994, Whitewater press conference. "The young attorney, the young bank officer, did all the work," she said. "It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about." Next the screen filled with handwritten notes taken by White House aide Susan Thomases during the 1992 campaign. "She [Hillary] did all the billing," the notes said. Greenfield quipped that it was no wonder "the White House was so worried about what was in Vince Foster's office when he killed himself."

What the audience didn't know was that the ABC videotape had been edited so as to create an inaccurate impression. At that press conference, Mrs. Clinton had been asked not how much work she had done for Madison Guaranty, but how her signature came to be on a letter dealing with Madison Guaranty's 1985 proposal to issue preferred stock. ABC News had seamlessly omitted thirty-nine words from her actual answer, as well as the cut, by interposing a cutaway shot of reporters taking notes. The press conference transcript shows that she actually answered as follows: "The young attorney [and] the young bank officer did all the work and the letter was sent. But because I was what we called the billing attorney -- in other words, I had to send the bill to get the payment sent -- my name was put on the bottom of the letter. It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about."

ABC News had taken a video clip out of context, and then accused the first lady of prevaricating about the very material it had removed. Within days, the doctored quotation popped up elsewhere. ABC used the identical clip on its evening news broadcast; so did CNN. The New York Times editorial page used it to scold Mrs. Clinton, as did columnist Maureen Dowd. Her colleague William Safire weighed in with an accusatory column of his own: "When you're a lawyer who needs a cover story to conceal close connections to a crooked client," he began, "you find some kid in your office willing to say he brought in the business and handled the client all by himself." Safire predicted the first lady's imminent indictment.

Caving

I don't know much about these things, but I did think that giving into terrorist demands was generally considered to be a "wrong" thing to do, especially when it's the resolute steadfast steely-eyed rocketman who's giving in.

Zero

How many post-9/11 terrorist convictions can Ashcroft claim?


He locked up 5000 "suspected terrorists," but no actual ones apparently.

Morning Thread

Discuss.

Much Drinking

Thanks for all who attended -- I believe it was a success. Feedback welcome, as are volunteers for leadership (minimal duties) positions...