Saturday, August 2, 2008

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS AND THEIR BOGUS CLINTON ARTICLE

Now that we know the Daily News story about Hillary Clinton taking her name out of nomination was totally bogus and there wasn't a single factual truth anywhere in the article, was it simply just two more bungling inept incompetent journalists in Obama's pocket looking stupid in a major newspaper? Or is there more to it? The answer is probably both.

Yes they are bungling and incompetent because they tried to get away with a completely fabricated inaccurate story which they knew was false even before Senator Clinton's statement to the contrary was made public and it was to Obama's benefit to push the bogus story.

The real question to ask is , who was the real source of the story because it's clear it was not someone in the Clinton camp and why did they go with it knowing it was false?

The article was not only factually false on every issue it touched; it went beyond false and into the realm of the preposterous -- so preposterous that no one with 2 cents worth of political knowledge would have fallen for it at face value.

First the article was ignorant of Democratic Party rules regarding the nomination process and that could have been checked. Another was the factually false assertion that Clinton had counseled her delegates to vote for Obama, which, having been in touch with some of her delegates myself, I know is factually untrue. Then suggesting that she would release her delegates on August 26 one day before the roll call vote was nothing less than bizarre.

Senator Clinton made it clear again she has no intention of releasing her delegates nor should she. Secondly the idea that if she was to release them she would do it August 26 one day before the roll call vote is so bizarre it's not possible two political writers could have fallen for it since releasing the delegates then would have no political value to anyone.

It's clear that Michael Saul and Tom Defrank didn't bother to check a single fact and their editor didn't require it. That alone should be a red flag. But what makes it even more suspicious is that Tom DeFrank is a veteran political writer for the Daily News. This is not some guy who just fell off the turnip truck. He had to know that this information was false because it made no political sense. But the editor had to be part of the collusion because anyone would know that if Clinton had made such a momentous decision it would have been on the front page not buried in someones political column.

These facts alone would have sent up a red flag to anyone with even a shred of political insight. Which of course hasn't stopped Matt Drudge from repeating it.

So the real story is, how did this get into print in the first place and where did it originate? We know where it didn't come from. It didn't come from anyone in the Clinton camp as the story falsely alleged. It didn't come from anyone even remotely close enough to have any real knowledge of even the Democratic Party's own rules and procedures.

So where did it come from? Who was really the source?

For one thing we know that The New York Daily News is a Republican leaning newspaper and we know that the Republicans would much rather run against Obama who they know they can beat. But the story itself has Obama's fingerprints all over it. It fits his profile in every way.

Obama got his start in politics using strong arm tactics to elbow Alice Palmer off the ballot in Chicago. We know that he and his political sycophants like Bill Richardson, Jonathan Alter, Pat Leahy, Joe Klein and writers at Politico.com tried as hard as they could to pressure Clinton to drop out as early as March. Given that she was the eventual winner of the popular vote which was clear to many including Michael Barone at US News, it's made it obvious that those attempts were simply Obama strong arm tactics trying to get Clinton out of the picture to leave a clear field for Obama which has been his only way of getting elected to anything.

The evidence is mounting that Obama is starting to run scared. His poll numbers are awful and getting worse and people are noticing. His fraudulent crowd in Berlin has been exposed as the function of free food and a free concert by the two biggest acts in Germany ( not exactly a JFK moment).And he has double crossed so many of his supporters that, adding to his inherent incompetence for the job he is seeking, he is in real trouble.

That Daily News story is telling. It was designed to do Obama a favor and it has the Obama campaign's fingerprints all over it. Senator Clinton has made it clear that she intends on having her name placed in nomination which her 18 million voters want, her 1886 delegates want, but that Obama doesn't want.

Since Michael Saul and Tom DeFrank were given false information that any political writer with any journalistic instinct would have known was false from the beginning, only one of two things can be true: they are either truly stupid and incompetent and without any political common sense at all and so is their editor, or there is a major scandal at the Daily News because two political reporters and their editor printed a story they knew to be false (which would explain why they never bothered to check the facts or get any corroboration) and it had to be done in collusion with the Obama campaign to benefit Obama as the nominee, which conventional wisdom says would benefit McCain in a general election. That would be the motive for the News colluding with Obama. No honor among thieves.

This is more than just two bungling Daily News reporters looking stupid. People should demand answers and find out how this story got into print and it may uncover something the Obama and his campaign won't so readily be able to deny.

27 comments:

mm said...

Marc, This story adds insult to all of the injury done throughout the primary season. There weren't many articles that "got it right" as far as HRC's candidacy. If you ask me, all of our journalist, in print and visual media, need to go back to journalism school and rediscover what their jobs are.

Anonymous said...

Marc,
I rather thought Hillary would release her delegates in the midst of an inspiring speech at the convention, throwing her support to Obama in a very dramatic gesture - showing that she carries considerable support and power.

Why do you think it makes no sense politically? And, is she really planning on keeping her delegates? Is that to establish an offical record of all those votes for a woman?

I really don't understand party rules, nor politics for that matter.

I really enjoy your blog and your essays. I am an Independent and I will either be voting for Hillary or for Nader.

Vic

scoutt said...

WHY IS EVERYONE SO IN LOVE WITH THIS FRAUD?!!!!

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j125/sarahfdavis/bumpersticker.jpg

DWPforHILL said...

Marc,

You tell 'em! I was appalled by that article, having already heard from people who were at the Palo Altos event with Hillary, and seen the video clip of it.

It's also interesting that the date and timestamp on the original story put it at roughly the same time as that very Palo Altos event. Hmmmm.... some Obama supporter at the event tipped off the BHO camp, perhaps?

LNinLA said...

Marc - please email/talk with "Guilda" who's knows Heidi Li. Guilda had a conversation with Tom DeFrank, sent him the link for Clinton saying she felt it was fair for her delegates to be able to vote for her on the ballot. He did respond to her, so maybe she can forward you Tom's response.

Marc Rubin said...

"I rather thought Hillary would release her delegates in the midst of an inspiring speech at the convention, throwing her support to Obama in a very dramatic gesture - showing that she carries considerable support and power.

Why do you think it makes no sense politically?"


Because if she had no intention of putting her name in nomnination it would be a big plus for Obama to have that settled before the convention and it would head off any demonstrations by Clinton supporters who support her nomination at the convention. It would serve no political purpose for her, the DNC or Obama to wait till aug 26 if she intended to release her delegates. But the main point is she doesnt intend to release them and does intend to have her name in nomination which means super delegates are going to have to go on the record with their votes and she will have as good a chance as Obama to get the nomination depending on what the supers do.

mm said...

Marc I totally agree with your comments about why HRC is holding onto her delegates. I would like to point out that the best opportunity for her name to get into nomination (and not just a roll call vote) is for her pledged delegates to sign the Floor Petition which is circulating. If there are any pledged HRC delegates reading this, please feel free to put them in touch with me and I can direct them to the proper source for signing this important Petition. HRC mentioned the Petition in her talk recently and I interpreted this to mean that she is ready to be presented with this signed Petition that will put her name into nomination.

NYSmike said...

Here is the link to post there...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/31/2008-07-31_hillary_clinton_asks_not_to_be_nominated.html#community

Janet M said...

Marc, Three weeks and counting. Poll numbers slipping, McCain fighting back, more rumors of tapes, more flips then a circus act and Obama bloggers getting more angry at us PUMAS. Do I smell something in the air!!! Oh and Nancy getting her butt kicked by the Republicans ( getting some backbone) on Friday. Sorry Nancy the lights aren't off yet. Janet M

Not Your Sweetie said...

I remember the day of the Puerto Rico Elections, Murdoch owned AP lied TWICE in the same day that Hillary conceded. TWICE! and no retraction.
Clearly meant to depress the turnout.
These primaries were so rife with every kind of fraud, it barely resemples an election at all.

Anonymous said...

Listening to Hill on the fundraiser video, she thinks her name should be put in nomination so her voters would be heard . She is TRYING to keep the Dem party together....but the BO and handelers are idiots who are refusing even a chance of unity....while demanding Hill somehow produce it for them.

bluelyon said...

She is TRYING to keep the Dem party together....but the BO and handelers are idiots who are refusing even a chance of unity....while demanding Hill somehow produce it for them.

Egg-zactly.

And his latest "move" to give Michigan and Florida "full" voting rights after he's apparently cleared the field is so ridiculous. This is the only kind of election he knows how to win. I wonder how he's going to wipe McCain off the ballot in November, hmmm?

I notice that he didn't surrender the 4 Hillary votes from Michigan nor the uncommitteds he was awarded. This man is a fraud, through and through.

bluelyon said...

mm - re: contacting delegates to sign the petition, please contact me at bluelyon at gmail dot com.

suef4hil said...

Again, another travesty by the American media, who is corporately regulated. Everyone likes to think we have a free press in this country. BS.
The press is controlled by the GREENBACK and no one else.
Let's take some action here, I will be calling the Daily News today - although I doubt it will do much good.
I was on the phone w/ the AP on the last primary day when they reported that BO had won and when I called back the following day I was told they still stand by their story.
At least when the government controls the media you understand the slant. This posturing by the American press is pathetic.
thanks Marc, as always.

suef4hil said...

Well, I called the Daily News this morning, very convenient that Saul and DeFort are both on vacation this week...
But I did leave a VM for DeFort, who then called me back and left me a VM, very hostile, telling me he knows what he is talking about, the story was not fabricated, blah blah blah.
I called him back and left another message but so far have not heard back from him.

Anonymous said...

Uhmmm --- nowhere in your blog entry is there a source for Hillary Clinton denying the NY Daily News story, and Googling didn't find it either. Do you have, you know, a SOURCE?

MR said...

"Uhmmm --- nowhere in your blog entry is there a source for Hillary Clinton denying the NY Daily News story, and Googling didn't find it either. Do you have, you know, a SOURCE"?

Obviously you spend most of your waking life in a coma. Try going to YouTube and doing a search for "Hillary on the ballot" and hear the denial in her own words, which everyone else seems to know about.You might also want to check out Congressional Quarterly and their article. Are you sure you know how to Google?

MR said...

"Well, I called the Daily News this morning, very convenient that Saul and DeFort are both on vacation this week..."

Here is Tom DeFrank's email address. He was co-author of the article: TDeFrank@nydailynews.com

suef4hil said...

mr-

Here is Tom DeFrank's email address. He was co-author of the article: TDeFrank@nydailynews.com-

thanks, sorry I got his name wrong. And why are you asking me to prove a false story with a denial from Hillary Clinton? That isn't the way it works in America

suef4hil said...

sorry mr!! I called out the wrong person, grr!

suef4hil said...

Just wanted to share the response that Tom DeFrank sent me. Can someone explain what happened to American journalism? I clearly told this guy I am far from a journalist, just a mere consumer of the news and this is the response he sends to me:



Your last message shows that you’re not interested in dialogue, just insults. It also shows that you know nothing about how journalism works. I had to laugh out loud when you suggested an ulterior motive of damaging Hillary. Clearly you don’t read our paper and never have; if you did, you’d know that the owner is a friend of both Clintons and that the paper has endorsed her in every race she’s ever run, including the most recent primary campaign.

I wouldn’t hold your breath about a retraction since there’s no need for one.

Again, zealots like you have a certain point of view. Whenever you read or hear something you don’t like you leap into full frenzy, screaming bias as the only possible excuse. It’s tiresome and intellectually dishonest.

Thomas M. DeFrank
Washington Bureau Chief
New York Daily News
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street NW
Washington, DC 20007
202-467-6670
Fax: 202-331-0062
Mobile: 202-236-2185


I must say, I am frankly shocked by this type of response, so hostile. I have seen other people's responses that are of a similar tone and I guess I am just amazed at the state of American intercourse these days.

I understand banter and even out and out mud slinging on the blogs.

But when super delegates and reporters respond as such to voters and consumers, I have to ask, where has our commitment to public service and customer service gone? I am flummoxed.

Anonymous said...

mr -

Oh, I found many references to Clinton encouraging her delegates to throw their support behind Obama as she had done, and saying that we should have a unified convention.

What I DIDN'T find was a denial by Clinton of the Daily News story.

In order for the article to be, as you claim, "bogus", then the subject of that story, or someone who speaks for her, must be on record as publicly denying that story in the time since it was published. Referencing a speech made a few days earlier as "proof" that the story is "bogus" doesn't cut it.

I gotta say I agree with Tom DeFrank -- when you see a news article whose contents you don't like, you scream bias and bogus and try to discredit it without actually doing any journalistic homework.

MR said...

"Oh, I found many references to Clinton encouraging her delegates to throw their support behind Obama as she had done, and saying that we should have a unified convention."

To prove to people you havent completely lost your mind and youre not a Kool Aid drinker who has lost complete touch with reality why dont you name one..quote it..post it. you saying it means nothing just like the candidate you support. The fact is she has never told her delegates to vote for Obama because if you had half a brain you'd know she wouldnt have to do that. All she would have to do is release them and that would have been that. show us all proof that she has released her delegates. If you cant then you will know yourself the story was bogus and so are your arguments.

Lux_Renews said...

mr -

To prove to people you havent completely lost your mind and youre not a Kool Aid drinker who has lost complete touch with reality why dont you name one..quote it..post it.

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/06/29/164949

Would Hillary's own website do?

Hillary called on all of her supporters to unite behind Senator Obama and ensure a victory for America in November by electing him to be President.

Now, her delegates are surely her supporters, and as you can see she is calling on "all her supporters".

MR said...

"Would Hillary's own website do?

Hillary called on all of her supporters to unite behind Senator Obama and ensure a victory for America in November by electing him to be President. "

thank you for proving what we've already known. Obama supporters have either given up their brains to their cult hero or are political idiots. supportes are not delegates. Delegates are all that matter now. No one is going to the polls to vote for anyone till November. It also hasnt seemed to dawn on you that even asking her supportes to back Obama was doing only what she was asked to do so. So to answer your question, no it doesnt do. It just proves you dont know anything about politics. Show us where she has released her delegates, that is the only thing that will prove the News story correct and will prove she does not want the nomination. We wont be holding our breaths.

DancingOpossum said...

Most of Obama's followers were never interested in politics, and/or are very young, so their knowledge of it (or lack thereof) is pretty appalling, especially given their frequent attempts at proselytizing and lecturing those of us who have lived and breathed Democratic politics since before the wheel was invented.

(Evidence? For starters, witness the fact that most of them couldn't be bothered to vote any other downticket races during the primaries where they all turned out to cast their American Idol vote for The One. For another, their abysmal--or perhaps deliberate--misunderstanding of party processes, history, and rules.)

So don't be too harsh in condemning them. Remember what Confucius said, that there are three ways of learning--meditation, imitation, and experience--and that of these, experience is the most bitter. They are in for a very bitter awakening come November, and perhaps then they will learn both maturity and humility, two things they sorely lack.

Factcheck2 said...

All Sen. Clinton ever had to do was withdraw her endorsement of Obama and unsuspend her campaign, then none of these shenanigans could have taken place. Since Obama is technically the only candidate in the race, his campaign can do whatever it wants. It's a shame Clinton's supporters have played her as a victim, instead of holding her feet to the fire and forcing her to keep her campaign promise not to quit. In the end, she bowed to corporate interests. She knows like the rest of us that Obama is not a democrat and would not represent democratic values in the outside chance he gets elected. His whole political career has revolved around supporting predators. That's why her argument for unity is bogus. For more on Obama Bush, check out this article: http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Summer08/BushThirdTerm.html