SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator from New York? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: A. Borealis who wrote (2356)5/1/2000 7:29:00 PM
From: jimpit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3389
 
Luckily, you are still free enough to NOT believe
it, if you so desire.



To: A. Borealis who wrote (2356)5/2/2000 9:38:00 AM
From: Tom Clarke  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3389
 
Did you see any of the coverage of the correspondent's dinner?

It is pathological to continue to deny the reality of your senses.



To: A. Borealis who wrote (2356)5/4/2000 12:26:00 PM
From: jimpit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3389
 
What tortuous explanation would you concoct to square the
facts contained in this piece with your theory about a
'non-biased' media?
_______________________________________________________

NewsMax.com
newsmax.com

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Thursday May 4, 2000; 10:28 AM EDT

Guiliani Sex Questions Open Pandora's Box for Hillary
(Emphasis added)

Less than four months after the national press
condemned a Buffalo talk radio host for asking
Senate hopeful Hillary Clinton about her alleged
affair with the late Vince Foster, New York
newspapers are front paging rumors that her
opponent, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, is
having an affair with a 45-year-old Manhattan
businesswoman.

"Mayor Admits Upper East Side Mom is His Gal
Pal," blared the headline on the cover of
Thursday's New York Daily News, leaving the
impression that Giuliani has acknowleged
cheating on his wife Donna Hanover. In fact, the
New York mayor has done no such thing, admitting
at a Wednesday press conference only that he and
Judith Nathan are "good friends."

The day before, The New York Post published a
photo of Giuliani leaving a Manhattan eatery
with Nathan, kicking off a tabloid feeding
frenzy that began with a Tuesday item about
Giuliani and his "companion" on the News'
gossip page.

"We're very good friends, and she and her family
are entitled to privacy," the mayor told
reporters, "People who are private citizens
should really be left alone."

Despite the mayor's entreaty, swarms of
reporters were camped out in front of Nathan's
apartment Thursday morning. She emerged to tell
one of them, "The mayor and I are good friends
and I am very concerned for his health."

Last week Giuliani announced he had prostate
cancer.

In January, Mrs. Clinton called questions about
her own alleged affair with Foster
"inappropriate" and "out of bounds," telling
Buffalo radio host Tom Bauerle, "I do hate you
for asking about that."

The national press, including editorial writers
for both The Daily News and The New York Post,
resoundingly agreed, excoriating Bauerle for
posing sex questions to Hillary.

In fact, media wags considered the foray into
Mrs. Clinton's sex life so outrageous that TV
network news divisions clamored for an interview
Bauerle. "Today Show" host Matt Lauer personally
grilled the radio talker on the appropriateness
of raising questions about the first lady's
marital fidelity.

The attacks on Bauerle grew so intense that he
disappeared for a few days. Within two weeks of
his interview with Clinton, his station, WGR55AM
in Buffalo, cancelled his popular "Breakfast
with Bauerle" show, replacing it with an all
sports talk show which Bauerle continues to
host.

But now that the New York press has jumped on
Giuliani's sex life it's a whole new ballgame --
and heretofore verboten questions about the
Clintons' marriage could take reporters into
extra innings.

Even the New York tabloids have refused to query
the first lady about Juanita Broaddrick, who
gave a compelling nationally televised account
last year of her brutal rape by Hillary's
husband.


Reporters may pretend that Broaddrick rape
questions have no bearing on Mrs. Clinton's
candidacy. But that's nonsense, as most of them
no doubt realize.

Not only is Clinton a feminist icon, she led the
fight against sex crimes in Arkansas in the
1970's, setting up the state's first rape crisis
hotline.


Worse still, Broaddrick herself suspected that
Mrs. Clinton knew about her own rape, after the
two met at a Democratic Party fundraiser three
weeks after the attack.


The Clinton rape accuser told Christopher
Anderson, author of Bill and Hillary: The
Marriage, "Hillary sought me out, and when
somebody told her where I was, she came straight
for me and cornered me and grabbed my hand very
forcefully."


"I want you to know how grateful we are for all
you've done for Bill," Broaddrick said Hillary
told her, before adding pointedly, "And for all
you'll keep doing."

Broaddrick said that Mrs. Clinton continued to
keep a tight grip on her hand while she stared,
silently, into her eyes until the intended
message was received. "I knew exactly what she
meant -- that I was to keep my mouth shut,"
Broaddrick said.


Broaddrick's charge that Mrs. Clinton's tried to
silence her is bolstered by the Clinton
administration's admission that Hillary played a
key role in White House efforts to discredit
another Clinton sex-assault accuser, Kathleen
Willey.

In March, a federal judge ruled that President
Clinton committed a criminal violation of the
Privacy Act when he ordered aides to release
Willey's private correspondence. But in
repsonses to questions from Judicial Watch last
year, White House attorneys admitted that
Hillary, as well as her husband, had authorized
the attack on Willey's credibility.


"(White House advisor Sidney) Blumenthal recalls
that he and Mrs. Clinton discussed Ms. Willey's
letters to the President, and that the letters
were inconsistent with what Willey had told '60
Minutes.' Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Blumenthal
agreed that the letters should be released."


Blumenthal wasted little time in carrying out
the first lady's wishes, according to the court
document:

"That same day, March 16, 1998, Mr. Blumenthal
telephoned Ms. Jill Abramson, a reporter for the
New York Times" to tip the paper off to the
Willey letters.

Mrs. Clinton's role as an enabler to her
husband's predatory sexual behavior surely
deserves some scrutiny now that the media has
pulled the bedsheets down on Giuliani's private
life.


In fact, now that journalists have dropped their
sex question taboo, it's blatantly hypocritical
for them to ignore other inconvenient tidbits
from the Clintons' marital history.

For instance, what does Hillary think of her
husband's affair with former Miss America
Elizabeth Ward Gracen? In 1998, Gracen finally
acknowledged having a one night stand with Bill
Clinton after years of denying their
relationship was sexual.

Gracen friend Judy Stokes told Paula Jones
investigator Rick Lambert that in fact, the
beauty queen came to her in tears after the
encounter and said that Clinton lunged at her in
the back seat of his limousine. Gracen told
Stokes that the sex "was something she did not
want to happen."

According to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff,
the sex between Gracen and Clinton was "rough"
and involved "biting." Broaddrick says Clinton
bit her on the lip to force her to submit during
the rape.

Did Bill Clinton rape Miss America? Perhaps
Hillary knows the answer, just as she apparently
knew something about her husband's attack on
Broaddrick.

There's yet a third account of a sex attack by
Hillary's husband from a female lawyer in Little
Rock, who told Partners in Power author Roger
Morris that Clinton forced himself on her,
"biting and bruising her in the process."

Though Morris kept her identity a secret, the
author told NewsMax.com that he interviewed both
the assault victim and her husband several times
in 1994. The husband said Clinton privately
confessed to the sex attack, "sheepishly
apologized and duly promised never to bother
(his wife) again
."

Last year, Rudy Giuliani told NewsMax.com that
he thought questions about Juanita Broaddrick's
rape charge have no place in a Senate campaign.
That's pretty much what he told reporters on
Wednesday about his own private life.

Still, the New York media shows no sign of
taking his advice, with the feeding frenzy on
Giuliani sex rumors just now getting underway.
When the mayor convened a press conference
Thursday morning to pay tribute to John Cardinal
O'Connor, who had died only hours before,
reporters' first questions were about Giuliani's
sex life.

But before journalists go too far down this
road, they need to explain why rumors about
consensual sex are more relevant than multiple
rape charges against the President of the United
States.


All Rights Reserved ¸ NewsMax.com
____________________________________________________________
newsmax.com



To: A. Borealis who wrote (2356)5/4/2000 1:00:00 PM
From: Scarecrow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3389
 
The gullibility must lie with you:

Here are statistics which I'm sure you'll find as persuasive as they are inconvenient...

Courtesy of today's Media Reality Check

----------------------
"NationalJournal.com Finds Liberal Bias: CNN Editor
Denounces As ?Crock' Discovery of Great Gap Between Liberal and
Conservative Labeling." The text of the May 3 Media Reality Check
fax report prepared by the MRC's Tim Graham about a story posted
by National Journal, best known for its Hotline political news
service:

Eron Shosteck writes a media column called "Pencil Necks" for
National Journal.com. Last week, he made an unusual declaration:
"Writing about the political print press without addressing the
eternal question of bias is like trying to avoid a confrontation
with the obstreperous drunkard at your intimate dinner party."
Shosteck decided to evaluate media bias by doing a Nexis database
search of "English-language news" for certain politically loaded
terms. He found liberal favoritism:

-- Partisans. The term "?partisan Republican'...has turned up 85
times in the English-language news media over the past 90 days. By
contrast, the term ?partisan Democrat' has turned up only 58 times
in the same time period." That's a ratio of 1.5 to 1.

-- Extremists. "A Nexis search of ?extreme right' over the past 90
days was ?interrupted' because it exceeded 1,000 documents, which
seems to bog down Nexis' data retrieval system. So we narrowed
down our investigation time-frame. A Nexis search of ?extreme
right' over the past month scored 212 mentions; a Nexis search of
?extreme left' over the past month yielded 58 items. This search
reveals that the print media label right-wingers ?extreme' nearly
four times more often than they label left-wingers ?extreme.'"

-- Hard Right/Left. "Nexis search for print media uses of ?hard
right' over the past 90 days: 683. Nexis search for print media
uses of ?hard left' over the past 90 days: 312. Again, the media
are apt to label an individual or group ?hard right' more than
twice as often than they are apt to label an individual or group
?hard left.'"

-- Far Right/Left. "Nexis search of ?far right' over past week:
267 (past 90 days and 30 days yielded more than 1,000 documents).
Nexis search of ?far left' over past week: 130....the media are
more than twice as likely to label a conservative person or group
as ?far right' than they are to label a liberal person or group
?far left.'"

Shosteck concluded: "When conservatives kvetch about the media
being more apt to use negative labels for their leaders, special
interest groups and public policy positions than they are for
liberal leaders, special interest groups and public policy
positions, conservatives are not just spouting empty rhetoric. The
raw numbers, free of any manipulation, back up conservatives'
claims."

-- Reaction. After each ideological discrepancy, Shosteck argued
that there are an equal number of extreme figures on the left as
there are on the right. Media figures did not agree.

In an e-mail to Jim Romenesko's MediaNews Web site
(www.poynter.org/medianews), CNN Interactive Technology Editor D.
Ian Hopper complained: "The National Journal 'investigation' was a
crock. In a Democratic administration, coming after an
impeachment, of course we'd read quite a bit about the 'far
right.' The 'left' is winning, so they don't need to be so vocal.
I seriously doubt we'll see a similar check for time periods
during the Reagan-Bush administration."

Take this, CNN. The September 1991 issue of MRC's MediaWatch
documented the use of "left wing" and "right wing" terms in The
Washington Post during 1990. Post reporters used "right-wing" 394
times, "left-wing" only 87. On extreme terms (extreme, far, hard,
etc.), the numbers were 106 on the right, 24 on the left.