You may have missed my response to your Tammy Wynette comment under the Sen. Clinton/Jeff Gerth posting. Here it is.

You did mischaracterize Sen. Clinton's words to support your point. You either misquoted or paraphrased her wrongly. Furthermore, you left out the second part of her quote, either: (a) deliberately; (b) because you'd forgotten it; or (c) because your source, if you had one, had also left it out.

Here's what you said that Mrs. Clinton said.

"I would never "Stand by your man" like that Tammy Wynette did"

Then you commented: "actually you, [Mrs. Clinton] did stand by your man, turned a blind eye and all for political expedience."

The combination of your misquote or misleading paraphrase of Mrs. Clinton's words and your comment, strongly implies that Mrs. Clinton PROMISED that she "would never" (I'm quoting YOU here) stay with Bill Clinton if he cheated, but then did stay with him after she actually caught him cheating, thereby breaking her promise out of "political expedience" (I'm quoting you again).

But the actual quote, which you gave in your 10/17/07, 3:12 pm post (good for you) is: "I'm not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette." This statement is not a promise of Mrs. Clinton’s future conduct. Instead, it is a prelude to explaining her real reasons for staying in the marriage. "I'm sitting here because I love him and I respect him and I honor what we've been through together. If that's not enough for people, then heck, don't vote for him." Because she wasn’t making a promise here, she couldn’t have broken it later and therefore your implication that she was being dishonest was unwarranted. (Later, when you quoted Mrs. Clinton accurately, you altered your posture from an attack on her honesty to one on her strength. However, some people find sticking to one’s convictions and marriage even in the face of serious challenges to be a proof of fortitude, rather than a sign of weakness.)

The reason she apologized for her remarks wasn't because she had been dishonest (the point of your first post), or because she was a weak woman pretending to be strong (the point of your second, I suppose). She apologized because she referred to Ms. Wynette personally, rather than confining her remarks to Ms. Wynette’s song, thereby hurting Ms. Wynette’s feelings. I freely confess that I don't know what you mean by "see[ing] it the right way," or what part the reference to Mrs. Clinton’s apology to Ms. Wynette is supposed to play in buttressing your argument.

I'm also not entirely certain what you mean by “word-play[ing]” or “hoping for nuance,” but, as I've demonstrated, there is a significant difference between what you said Mrs. Clinton said and what she actually said. By changing Mrs. Clinton’s “not” to your “never,” you twisted her words from a statement explaining why she was staying with her husband into a promise that she wouldn't should he prove unfaithful. A promise that you then convict her of breaking. The charitable explanation for the discrepancy between her words and yours,’ is that you thought (without checking) that you were paraphrasing a quote that supports your perpetual proposition that Sen. Clinton is a self-serving liar. But regardless of how it happened, this mischaracterization is stark, not nuanced and is very serious stuff for a man who has no patience with even minor misstatements and obviously prides himself on his unimpeachable integrity.

Given your past record, I would seem to be in absolutely no danger of being presented with a tape of Sen. Clinton robbing a bank ...," or any other irrefutable evidence of her “guilt.” At least, not by you.

P.S. I cannot blame you at all for not wishing to write to me any more. However, when I address your comments using your name, personal communication with you is, at best, a secondary consideration. First and foremost, I want to identify the source of what I consider misinformation, poor logic etc., and then make what corrections I can. Of course, using your name makes it easier for you to give a crisp, logical rebuttal to my arguments. In the circumstances, however, I suppose I don’t blame you for not taking advantage of the opportunity. I will continue to use your name when I disagree with your comments but I urge you not to take the matter personally.

The New York Times is certainly not part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" now are they?

The evil one Karl Rove is down in the dungeon as we speak, working on these TRUTHFUL ads, that will be called smear ads by the MSM, but there will be so much material from so many different sources, they will not be able to ignore the ONSLAUGHT.

Biden/Obama are the best choice for the Democrats and they would be tough to beat, HillBilly on the other hand thanks to her self described co-presidency and scandal after scandal is goin' down, big-time.

Think about that kids, she will tape a rivals conversation but not a terrorist that wants to kill all of us.

Plenty of sunshine....

She flip flops on important issues such as Iran. She first says she would not negotiate with Iran and blasts Obama as being naive and irresponsible when he said he would. During one of the debates Hillary says on camera, "I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works."

Of course her Iran flip flop pales in comparison to her speech on the Senate floor when voting to go to war in Iraq then years later saying, "If I knew then what I know now." Well Mrs. Clinton, why didn't your read the report before you voted to go to war?

When Hillary is caught, once again, in a campaign finance scandal the democratic sheeple are more than happy to close their eyes and blindly follow Hillary down the garden path.

When it came to torture of terrorist Hillary said in October 2006, "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President." When asked by Tim Russert if a Presidential exemption to allow torture in the face of imminent danger Hillary contradicts herself once again. "It cannot be American policy, period."

If you read transcripts of Hillary Clinton's interviews when she is asked a question she invariable dances around the issue and then ends her monolog with a question. When she is asked whether or not the campaign has paid enough attention to education her response is, "I think we have to ask ourselves, is education working in the 21st century?" Well duh! What kind of answer is that? When she was asked to clarify her answer she again replies with a question, "Just because I sat in a classroom with my hands crossed on my desk and with the teacher in the front of the room telling me what I was supposed to learn, that's how we need to keep doing it year after year after year? So, I think that there are other reasons that people could point to, but it really comes down to how personally people feel about this issue." Uhh...What? Way to not answer yet another question Hillary.

So now yet another skeleton comes out of the Clinton closet and yet again the democrats are quick to dismiss it. Had this article been about a republican candidate you can bet real money these same democrats would be ranting and raving and crying impeachment or. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.

Bush lite indeed.

It doesn't matter who did the investigation or how much money was money was spent. What matters is the truth in the evidence found.

You guys who support the clintons no matter what might as well pray to them.

THOMAS-I'm not a Hillary fan, but she was actually on Keith Olberman a few weeks ago. I dont blame her for not getting on the No Spin Zone, O'Reilly is a psychopath.

Posted By Angela, wpb, fl : October 16, 2007 11:59 pm

Since CNN is the only place where I heard the Obama story:

Are you suggesting that CNN (of all networks) by posting these two stories are somehow affiliated with the Republicans?

Two New York times INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS are certainly not part of "the vast right-wing conpiracy", but they write a book about the "queen" and her usual corrupt BS,and you sheep will dismiss it NO MATTER WHAT and heaven forbid the Republicans want it investigated.

After all isn't the New York Times the beacon of our media, "All the news that's fit to print"?

The rules are set, NOBODY can say ANYTHING about the "queen" during the next election cycle and that includes fellow Democrats (smears), Republicans (VRWC), prize winning liberal reporters (hacks), Fox news (duh), CNN (now part of the VRWC) and the coronation will be completed.

She can be caught robbing a bank with a KKK shirt on you sheep would not only dismiss it, but find ways to blame someone else.

With all her and Billyboy's dirt, the mud will be easy to sling. Bah, Bah.

We are democrats. We think Hillary will be a disaster for this country. She lies, takes money from the PAC's who will stop any real reform, and she will further divide our sadly fractured nation.

Wake up. We are democrats and we are not going to stand by and let her become the leader of this country.

HRC has so many obvious, outright flaws and bad policy ideas to exploit, there is really no need to dig up 15 year old supposed he-said-she-said dirt... dirt which no one could actually prove now anyway.

This broad is an easy target just with things she has done and said in the media. I can already envision many versions of great ads that showcasing HRC as the scheming, calculating person she truly is.

Let's not embarrass ourselves with such dirt-digging, muckraking, yellow-journalism nonsense. Leave that to the Move.On.orgs of the world and other people who are clearly below us.

Elections are not a big mud-slinging competition, folks (or at least they shouldn't be). It doesn't have to be ugly. This is simply an opportunity to point out who has the better leadership qualities to lead this nation and solve problems (and have the common sense to recognize which problems are "personal problems" which simply cannot be solved by the government).

Hillary says she wants everything equal for everyone. But that's not entirely truthful. While we all want equal OPPORTUNITIES (which we have), Hillary wants to legislate equal OUTCOMES in life. And that folks, cannot be legislated, as it is entirely dependent upon the motivation of each individual.

Hmmm...let's see...

Had this charge been made against Laura Bush or Barbara Bush, would CNN have stated "DEMOCRATS SEIZE ON BUSH EAVESDROPPING ALLEGATION"?

We all know the answer to that question.

I would NOT vote for Hillary because I have no idea what her core values are (besides an unquenchable thirst for power). She never answers specific questions presented by the media.

Hillary refuses to appear on the top rated cable news program, "The O'Reilly Factor" for this very reason. The NY senator does not want to answer difficult questions. Jesse Jackson was treated respectfully when he recently appeared on 'The O'Reilly Factor'.

During an interview with Hannity this week, Guliani stated that Hillary has never been responsible for millions, or even hundreds of people. She's never run a city nor a state, and during these problematic times, we do not need on the job training in the executive branch of government. Very thought provoking comments, indeed.

I'd rather see Al Gore win the Democratic nomination than Hillary. The thought of President Hillary is terrifying.

Had this charge been made against Laura Bush or Barbara Bush, would CNN have stated "DEMOCRATS SEIZE ON BUSH EAVESDROPPING ALLEGATION"?

We all know the answer to that question.

I would NOT vote for Hillary because I have no idea what her core values are (besides an unquenchable thirst for power). She never answers specific questions presented by the media.

Hillary refuses to appear on the top rated cable news program, "The O'Reilly Factor" for this very reason. The NY senator does not want to answer difficult questions. Jesse Jackson was treated respectfully when he recently appeared on 'The O'Reilly Factor'.

During an interview with Hannity this week, Guliani stated that Hillary has never been responsible for millions, or even hundreds of people. She's never run a city nor a state, and during these problematic times, we do not need on the job training in the executive branch of government. Very thought provoking comments, indeed.

I'd rather see Al Gore win the Democratic nomination than Hillary. The thought of President Hillary is terrifying.

Remember the old adage about glass houses? Don't you think that we on the other side have done our homework on Giuliani and abortion/gays/anti-NRA, on Thompson on his legal work on behalf of pro-abortion groups, on Romney and his illegal use of non-profit Mormon Temples to raise money for him and others?

This isn't 2004 when the "SwiftBoat" crowd slimed Kerry at will. This time, we fight back...and, brother, do we have the ammo we need!

As Dubya said..."Bring it on!"

To Dan S who seems to think the right wing has never successfully proven their meritless allegations against the Clintons – actually, they did.

Former President Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath (and thus impeached), the same thing they put Martha Stewart in prison for. Mrs Clinton has only escaped this charge numerous times because she has a spectacularly bad memory (rather than outright lying, she simply says "I don't recall"). I suspect her campaign won't recall anything about eavesdropping, either, and that her former position on wiretapping will now start to change on a daily basis.

The Republicans have no decent candidate and this is what the party comes up with to try to slow down sen. Clinton????? Pathetic!!!

Nice to know that clowns like you buy all that these authors are saying. Do your homework!! These two authors are notorious for not backing up their allegations with facts.

Where's your website references for this one?

I am surprised by the fact that people across the globe just happen to have precise information about my cholesterol readings.

I think the security apparatus of Bs and Ms of this world would find it impossible to protect their clientele, were they denied ready access to critical information on anyone on this earth.

In such an environment, Republican's stand such as this is not only absurd, but downright laughable.

Today, Verizon released official statistics on the amount of data it shared with law enforcement. Nothing wrong with sharing information with Law enforcement.

What Verizon, AT&T and Sprint et el do not disclose is how much (almost incalculable) data their data center employees are sharing with anyone and everyone out there in the world.

To most people this may sound an accusation, but that is the reality of the world envisaged by likes of Bill Gates et el.

In fact today Bill Gates is proud to annouce a product that can accurately track you down if you happen not to answer your phonecall. Lot of good this does to anti-social elements of this world.

Republicans and democrats would do well to rethink how critical services are being managed in this country.

Please continue with the dusty ol' play book Freepers...all the way to Nov. 2008, I'm ready for another Clinton renaissance.

We are in the last year of a president who believes it OK to spy on Americans, do we want ANOTHER president who is willing to spy on her opponents? Come to think of it, isn't that what 'Watergate' and Nixon's 'thugs' were doing? Is Hillary going to tell us.."I am not a crook"?