Redstate

You write this with the sense that there is something new in her inconsistency :-)

Recall the details of co-President Hillary's socialized medicine plans early in the first Clinton administrations? You say you don't recall the details because you never got them? A lesser man than me would say that that was because the Clinton administration had a penchant for secrecy, but I would never say such a thing about her.

I swear there must be something in the water in DC that makes politicians forget that there are such things as video tape. On the otherhand if it's a Democrat they don't really have to worry about things like that do they, the press will "fix" it for them.

FYI, the comments you attribute to Hillary Clinton on Good Morning America appear to have been made by Bill Clinton:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs20.4feb20,0,1412
095.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

...I stand corrected and have updated the post.

Thanks.

NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter essays that media budget cuts and shifting news priorities have contributed to the public being in the dark about Cheney's ways and means.

On CNN's RELIABLE SOURCES, WASHINGTON POST reporter Dana Milbank fretted that the White House is exploiting the public's growing disdain for the mainstream media. "Of course they succeed," Milbank said of Bush aides. "The press always looks awful. They will once again make us look awful."

CNN's Candy Crowley added: "The perception is that we're whining."

White House correspondent Bill Plante of CBS agreed.

"The vice president and the White House have both used the constant press coverage of this story as a wedge," he told RELIABLE SOURCES host Howard Kurtz. "It plays to the prejudices of the people who are predisposed not to like us, and it's one way to distract attention from what happened."

Courtesy of DrudgeReport

In other words, the Republican spin machine is spinning this story to make the messenger look bad. They (BushCo) are re-directing focus from Cheney and the terrible, secretive thing he did to the behavior of the press. The message is not getting out!

Wow! Who does that sound like? That is right out of Democrat's post election playbook.

Liberal bias? What liberal bias? Where would anyone get that idea?

Talk about Chutzpah, Sen. Clinton is full of it.  Wasn't too long ago when she could not find her legal records under a court (or special counsel?) order.  That is, until the day after the statute of limitations kicked in and suddenly the records miraculously appeared on a coffee table in their personal quarters.  Of course, the hypocrisy of the Clinton's and all the democrats, for that matter, is fully protected by the main stream media in DC.

it's nothing.  two people with two different opinions.  yawn

I'm not sure why the misattribution of a Bill Clinton statement on GMA really matters.

Simply because the premise of this diary was incorrect in no way precludes us from drawing certain, definitive conclusions about Hillary Clinton.

In the case Paul Cella cites, Hillary Clinton was hypocritical before she wasn't.

And that is bad enough for me.

Err, I think.

True irony would have her talking about how fortunate it was that the Clinton administration had the foresight to make sure the 'protective detail privledge' was laughed out of court, so the VP's detail could talk freely to the investigating authorities about what they witnessed.

Wow, a husband and wife disagreeing with each other.  Scandalous!

And barely a disagreement, at that:

Hillary: "A tendency of this administration -- from the top all the way to the bottom -- is to withhold information...."

Bill: "... the administration has an enormous penchant for secrecy for not telling anybody anything about anything."

Yeah, those two are worlds apart.

The Clintons talking about secrecy is like the James Brothers going into the bank security business.  Although it's possible the James brothers could reform and be sincere, nod to the bank robbers.  Hypocrisy is a much overused word in today's politics, this is not hypocrisy.  There's a curtain of self delusion here that only sodium pentothal could pierce.  When do they join up and take their act on the road?

point.

...when either of the Clintons opine on the subject of secrecy, whatever they say has less than zero credibility.

...it's two people who lived by "deny, deny, deny," and probably still do, and now throw stones at those they claim operate under a veil of "secrecy."

...that you have two people who lived by "deny, deny, deny," and probably still do, and now throw stones at those they claim operate under a veil of "secrecy."

So when they opine on the matter of "secrecy," what they say has less than zero credibility.

Whatever.  You know, when it was pointed out that you misattibuted Bill's comments, you could have  admitted that you goofed and then dropped it, instead of pretending that your point still stands (inasmuch as simply making fun of Hillary counts as a "point" in the first place).

But, fine.

...I did acknowledge my error.

It seems you are missing the point of the delectable irony (two parts-at least) still present.  First, the Clinton's who for eight years hung tough by the mantra of "deny, deny, deny" now have, somewhat, split on this issue.  Second, the former President says that he didn't pile on, yet in my view, he still does in his statement on GMS.

It's a little like following the bouncing ball of their administration.

This is even disagreement on the part of the Clintons. President Clinton, after saying he doesn't want to pile on....PILES ON and hypocritically points out the same hypocritical point as his wife, the Jr. Senator from NY.

I think this diary is more about Clinton administration hypocrisy than any other matter.

Actually, your point, as articulated by the title of your post, was that Hillary Clinton was saying one thing while her husband, Bill Clinton, was saying another.

The title of your post, as I'm sure you're aware, was: Hillary Clinton Piled on Vice President Cheney While Her Husband Was Against It

You concluded from this that they were hypocritical.

Unfortunately, the underlying facts as stated by you - that she said one thing then he said another - were incorrect. You've simply cited two quotes from Hillary Clinton.

Hence, someone else's appropriate "yawn".

And imagine this, they didn't even disagree with each other.

Both quotes were from Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton said nothing.

The original poster accidentally saw two separate quotes from Hillary and assumed (hopefully unintentionally) that one from was from Bill Clinton.

False alarm, folks. Do not run, walk to the exits. No cause for alarm or panic.

just not in your post.  In fact, the first quote was from Senator Clinton, and the second was from ex-President Clinton on GMA.  If you'd like, I'd be happy to supply the videotape.

Nice snark, though -- 5 for 5.  However, you might want to get your facts straight next time.

is indicative of an oxygen-starved brain.  In this case, it is your facts, and not Joe's, which are in error.  As soon as you appreciate this, I assume an apology will be forthcoming, and no doubt graciously accepted by Joe.

the point is that when either of the Clinton's opine on the issue of secrecy....whatever they say has less than zero credibility.

This is kind of like an Abbot & Costello act.

I apologize, kind of. I got totally confused by the original diary.

As the original poster, Joe Cella, acknowledges, his original post was in error:

Mea culpa ... I stand corrected and have updated the post.

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/20/11393/0260/3#3

I'm not sure what he originally posted, but he (rightly so) "corrected" his post to reconcile the misattribution. I got confused in there somewhere.

Regardless, the real irony of this whole diary is that it is the exact same type of Clinton Hating or Clinton Bashing that the Right (correctly) claims the Left does with Bush.

I don't find either "Hating" very productive. Those on the Left who spend all their time bashing Bush are wasting their time. And those on the Right who (after 8 years of it while Clinton was in office, are still doing it 6 years later) still froth at the mouth over their desire to bash Clinton, are equally wasting their time.

Though understandably that won't stop many of you from doing it.

Bush is a hypocrite! (said in high pitched whine) No, Clinton is a hypocrite! (said in high pitched whine)

Carry on, kids.

even if it was only, kind of, an apology.  I imagine even that small admission was fairly difficult for a liberal on a conservative blog -- and following the pre/post-correction thread was a bit confusing.

It's about as interesting as anything about this whole affair has been (well, excluding a few jokes I've heard told...).  They're supposed to have the same opinions about everything?  Seems that's what you're trying to imply with this diary.  If you want to write a diary about secrecy/hypocrisy go for it, but this one didn't come off that way.

I think arguments pegging Hillary as the next flip flopper would be more effective if quotes were used in which she actually flip flopped.

I don't think she's right here, but isn't it a little 1950's to argue that the fact that she disagreed with her husband is newsworthy?