Caught On Film: Hillary Talks To Architect Of Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Talking Points Memo:

As you know, earlier today Hillary Clinton tried to stoke the Jeremiah Wright controversy by telling an editorial board meeting in Pittsburgh that Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor" and then going on to note that she had denounced Don Imus in contrast to Obama's allegedly more tolerant attitude toward hate speech....

Now obviously, Hillary's been in the political big leagues for a while. She knows how to deflect a question. But it's actually much richer than this. This afternoon Greg Sargent and I were talking this over and one of us realized that this wasn't just any Pittsburgh paper. It was the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the money-losing, vanity, fringe sheet of Richard Mellon Scaife, funder of the Arkansas Project, the American Spectator during its prime Clinton-hunting years and virtually every right-wing operation of note at one point or another over the last twenty years or more.

Read the whole story: Talking Points Memo

Comments

[Mia319]

See her apology!! Bitter, angry, sarcastic, grandiose!! Gotta seeit!!

[Grannysue]

Told you, this woman would sell her sole to the devil to be the nominee, she already has, isn't that special, they are such good friends aren't they. He obviously promised that when they buy her the WH they won't investigate Bill's dalliances while she's in office, nor anything she may do wrong. Time for another trip to a WAR zone.

[HatingTheGame]

"...this woman would sell her sole ..."

Sell her "sole" -- well if the shoe fits

LOL

[Countess]

Please pay attention! Hillary Clinton is part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

[clearmind2008]

Well. well. well. Obama For President!

[joselopez]

Clinton will sit down with her enemies, only if they can help her advance her self-interest.

Typical of the Clintons.

Enough of this soap opera. I implore the Super Delegates to end this by doing now, what they are expected to do later: ENDORSE OBAMA.

[bluevillage]

What was she doing meeting with this editorial board? Usually these meetings are interviews for endorsements. Was she seeking their endorsement??? I haven't heard anyone asking this question.

[Opus007]

Since they were having such a nice chat- no question came up about say- her tax returns?

[VOTER]

Today's question to Candidate Clinton:

WHO asked you THE question?

And did Mr. Mellon Scaife offer you campaign tricks/tips? Or did you ask him?

[TheRebel82]

Can you say Sell-Out?

[Plowboy]

Old news: Hillary saw a vast right wing conspiracy --- and joined it.

[Zhonni]

If you can't beat them, join them right?

[rojo7449]

It's called politics. Reaching across the aisle. Working with people who have an opposite opinion, and even an opposite agenda, to reach a compromise. If you believe Obama can't do this, you need to rethink Obama.

[DocJerome]

There it is for all to see. Watch the unscrupulous opportunist in action.

[IslandGyal]

Hillary's slogan "I will say anything and do anything, even conspire with my enemies, Hillary Clinton for president" As president, I won't talk to America's enemies, but as a nominee I will surely consort with my enemies.

[DoninJoisey]

Nice!

[jriegel]

Oh this is so pathetic. The fact that she would meet with a man who so viciously tried to ruin her husband is beyond me ... just beyond me. This is about character at its most fundamental. How many more stories or Clinton inspired muggings do we need before we Democrats say enough of the Clintons. We need to see and feel our great spirit once again. It won't happen with these two back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

I have changed my mind...I NOW SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON. She has to be the best candidate for the Presidency, after all she's a Clairvoyant! How else could she have a written answer (and yes she was reading that answer) to a contemporaneous (or so it's claimed) question?

I noticed something VERY, VERY strange about the question or maybe not so much the question but the questioner. I can't ever remember watching a news conference in which a questioner did not Identify him/herself and their organization. Even Helen Thomas who has reported from the White House since the invention of dirt states Helen Thomas Hearst News before asking her question. Listen carefully to the clip and you will hear no introducti­on/identif­ication.

This has to be the (excuse the oxymoron) epitome of lowness. Without a doubt in my mind I think that was a loaded question by a plant. I guess Hillary is pulling another page from the book 'How to Be President' by George Bush, have press conferences where staff get to ask the questions.

Oh and to readdress my opening statement about support...­.NOT, NOT, NOT.

[robeson]

My guess would be that Wolfson or Penn begged the question from the Scaife group.

[DavidK08]

New solution>>Count MI and FL as they are. Give the pledged delegates as they are. Eliminate the Super delegates enirely. Change the number of delegates to clinch and lets move on. What is wrong with letting the people decide this?

[BOBZILLA]

Okay, but if even THAT doesn't work, we may want to change MORE rules and make Obama's delegates worth, say, 50% of Hillary's (after all she has a "lifetime of experience" in case you haven't heard and he only made a speech in 2002).

And if that STILL doesn't clinch it for her, maybe we'll give her a 15% bonus in the delegate count for being a combat veteran in Bosnia.

Heck, let’s just do what seems to have been done in Texas where Obama received more delegates than Hillary- forget the count and simply declare her the victor anyway. We’ll be sure to call it a “landmark victory” to add credibility.

[bailey2006]

"What is wrong with letting the people decide this?"

Well, let me tell you what is wrong. They did not follow the rules. They should not get a free pass on this. They need to face the consequences.

Do you have children? Is this how you raise them? You set down the rules of the house and you expect them to obey the rules, correct? If they break one of the rules, do you say, "OK, just don't do it again"? Or do you punish them? If you do the first, if they break the rule again, do you still not punish them?

Come on, folks. This is very simple. Follow the rules or face the consequences.

[TERRYKEITH4]

The truth! Well said.

[rojo7449]

It that's the rigid way you raised your kids, I hope it worked well for all of you. It's not how I raised mine and they are now well-positioned, kind, active in community charities, open hearted, fair, and honorable. They are sought after as mentors, advisors, and friends.

Sometimes rules and punishment get in the way of raising progressive, positive thinkers. Our rules were always fluid just in case we found they didn't provide for the best outcome, afterall.