Electionsgovernment Videos

On the December 20 edition of CNN s Anderson Cooper 360, discussing controversial remarks by William Shaheen, a then-co-chair of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) presidential campaign about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Jennifer Donahue, a senior adviser for political affairs at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, claimed that the Clinton campaign is "playing the race card" because of "what happened last week on the drug issue with Shaheen, and, moreover, with [Clinton s chief strategist] Mark Penn, who then kept repeating it over and over and over." But, as Media Matters for America documented, the entire December 13 Hardball segment on which Penn appeared was devoted to the controversy over Shaheen s comments, and Penn was not the first to raise the drug issue. Indeed, as Bob Somerby noted on his Daily Howler blog, host Chris Matthews "asked Penn a series of questions -- and every single one concerned drugs." The December 13 Hardball segment featured a discussion with Matthews, Penn, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod, and Joe Trippi, adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. As Media Matters noted, Matthews began the segment by asking Axelrod, "[A]re you satisfied with the explanation from the Hillary Clinton campaign that the comment by Mr. Shaheen about drug use by your candidate was not something coming from the top?" During his questioning of Penn, Matthews questions were exclusively on the issue of drugs: Matthews first asked Penn, "Mark, given the fact that this has reached into the spin room today and there were several questions to David Axelrod about whether his candidate, Senator Obama, has in fact shared or sold drugs, do you expect the Republicans to use this against the Democrats, no matter who wins the election -- the nomination fight, I should say?" Penn replied, "Oh, I don t know," before going on to say: "I m really disappointed. I think this thing with Billy Shaheen, he s stepped down. It was never a part of this campaign. It was unacceptable." Matthews then asked, "Did you tell him to step down? Did you tell him to step down? It took 24 hours for him to do it. Do you think he did it in time to stop this from becoming a story?" Penn replied: "I think this story is over. I think we made it very clear yesterday that we didn t condone it. We weren t part of these -- of the story that he went on with. And we absolutely apologized. And the senator went on the tarmac of the airport as we were all coming down to this debate and apologized personally, because this is not part of her campaign." Matthews continued, asking Penn: "These comments that are coming out of your campaign from different directions -- and I m not sure how they re coming, and nobody does -- but going after his perhaps youthful drug use, which he admitted in his book, and going after comments he made as a student and as a kindergarten student in fifth -- at the age of 5, I should say, do you think those are appropriate shots at the opponent, or are they below the belt?" In response, Penn said: "Well, I think we ve made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising, and I think that s been made clear." As Media Matters noted, Penn answered questions from Matthews and spoke for 1 minute and 43 seconds from the time he responded to Matthews first question until he said the word "cocaine." Later during the Anderson Cooper 360 discussion, Donahue followed up her assertion that the Clinton campaign is "playing the race card" by asserting, "I don t mean that Hillary Clinton is trying to play a race card, but I think that they re bringing up the issue of fear of African-Americans in a way that is either intentional or not, but is real." From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the December 13 edition of MSNBC s Hardball: MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, David Axelrod, are you satisfied with the explanation from the Hillary Clinton campaign that the comment by Mr. Shaheen about drug use by your candidate was not something coming from the top? AXELROD: Look, I have no way of knowing that. They say that, and we have to accept them at their word. I ll say this, Chris. When you, when you launch a negative attack and you say that this is the fun part of the campaign, you send a signal down the line to others in the campaign that leads to this kind of thing. And so whether or not there was an instruction to Mr. Shaheen, I think it s important that a signal get sent right from the top of the campaign that this isn t encouraged, that it s not the fun part of the campaign, that we ought to be lifting up this country instead of trying to tear each other down. MATTHEWS: Are you serving notice by your comment right now and your comment in the spin room that any further negative attack or suggestion by one of the Clinton people will come from Hillary? AXELROD: Well, I -- I m not suggesting that, Chris. But I will say this. Unless there s a strong, consistent signal from the top, unless we refrain from saying things like, "Negative campaigning is the fun part of the campaign," you re going to have that happening. There s sort of -- it s sort of a wink-and-a-nod thing. Everybody down the line says, "Oh, well, this is what this is about." So, I would think that it would be important for all the candidates to send a strong signal to their troops that this isn t where we re going go with this campaign. We re not going take it into the gutter. MATTHEWS: Mark, given the fact that this has reached into the spin room today and there were several questions to David Axelrod about whether his candidate, Senator Obama, has in fact shared or sold drugs, do you expect the Republicans to use this against the Democrats, no matter who wins the election -- the nomination fight, I should say? PENN: Oh, I don t know. I think, though, I m very disappointed by David s comments. I mean, you know, he s trying to rewrite history here. It is his candidate, Senator Barack Obama, on the front page of The New York Times that called Senator Clinton disingenuous. He started a wave of direct, personal negative attacks. And the senator finally began to reply very substantively that his plan leaves out 15 million people, whereas hers covers every single person. And he kept bringing up an Iran vote that he, in fact, skipped. So, I m really disappointed. I think this thing with Billy Shaheen, he s stepped down. It was never a part of this campaign. It was unacceptable. MATTHEWS: Did you tell him to step down? PENN: The senator made that clear. No, he stepped down. And he made clear -- MATTHEWS: Did you tell him to step down? It took 24 hours for him to do it. Do you think he did it in time -- PENN: No. No. MATTHEWS: -- to stop this from becoming a story? PENN: I think this story is over. I think we made it very clear yesterday that we didn t condone it. We weren t part of these -- of the story that he went on with. And we absolutely apologized. And the senator went on the tarmac of the airport as we were all coming down to this debate and apologized personally, because this is not part of her campaign. MATTHEWS: Right. PENN: And I think it s very important. She has been running a year-long positive campaign in which she s out there talking about ending the Iraq war and health care for all. MATTHEWS: These comments that are coming out of your campaign from different directions -- and I m not sure how they re coming, and nobody does -- but going after his perhaps youthful drug use, which he admitted in his book, and going after comments he made as a student and as a kindergarten student in fifth -- at the age of 5, I should say, do you think those are appropriate shots at the opponent, or are they below the belt? PENN: Well, I think we ve made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising, and I think that s been made clear. I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator - TRIPPI: I think he just did it again. He just did it again. PENN: This kindergarten thing, after what the senator did - TRIPPI: Unbelievable. They just literally - [crosstalk] PENN: Excuse me. TRIPPI: No, no. No, no, Mark, excuse me. PENN: Excuse me. Excuse me. TRIPPI: This guy s been filibustering on this. He just said "cocaine" again. It s like - PENN: I think you re saying "cocaine." TRIPPI: No, no. PENN: I don t know. I think you re saying it. [crosstalk] TRIPPI: You just did it. PENN: I don t know why you re saying it. [crosstalk] MATTHEWS: OK, Joe Trippi s turn. [crosstalk] TRIPPI: No. MATTHEWS: Joe Trippi s turn. From the December 20 edition of CNN s Anderson Cooper 360: COOPER: Jennifer, in New Hampshire is there the perception that Hillary Clinton is being singled out unfairly? I want to read you something that Time magazine s editor at large mentioned to The Washington Post, Mark Halperin. He said: "She s just held to a different standard in every respect. The press rooted for Obama to go negative. When he did, he was applauded. When she does it, it s treated as this huge violation of propriety. It s not a level playing field." DONAHUE: Well, they re doing it in an entirely different way. When Barack Obama went negative on Hillary Clinton, he did it after Edwards did, first of all. He grilled it and got it ready. And then Obama flipped it, and he basically did it in a way that was policy-based, issue-based. What [former Sen. Bob] Kerrey [D-NE] did the other day and what happened last week on the drug issue with Shaheen, and, moreover, with Mark Penn, who then kept repeating it over and over and over, they re playing the race card. I mean, this is not some small thing where they re saying, like Gore did about [Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bill] Bradley [NJ] in 2000 -- "He wanted to raise the retirement age" -- when, in fact, he didn t. This is the race card. They re attacking his race. And I think it s really above the pale. Voters here don t like it. [...] DONAHUE: Anderson, can I just jump in? Because I want to hear David s [Gergen, CNN senior political analyst] perspective. I mean, would you also say, then, that [Republican presidential candidate Mike] Huckabee is not playing the religion card against [Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney? GERGEN: No, I think he is playing the religion card. But that s -- that s said in a positive way. But I think, when you say somebody is playing a race card, you suggest that they have racist motives or they have a racist quality to them. DONAHUE: I don t -- well, I guess I don t -- GERGEN: I think that s unfair to the people involved. DONAHUE: They re trying to -- but don t you think -- I don t mean that Hillary Clinton is trying to play a race card, but I think that they re bringing up the issue of fear of African-Americans in a way that is either intentional or not, but is real. COOPER: I want David to respond, and then we got to go. GERGEN: I just don t happen to agree. I think that s unfair. Look, I think they have been clumsy. I think -- I think this is going to rebound against them. But I think it goes too far to say they re playing a race card. COOPER: [CNN chief national correspondent] John King, David Gergen, Jennifer Donahue, appreciate your comments. Thank you.

On the December 19 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer interviewed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and said, "Quick couple of questions, and you can give me your honest answers, as you always do." Blitzer then asked Giuliani: "Has [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] been a good senator for New York state?" After stating, "[n]ot from my point of view," Giuliani falsely claimed that Clinton "want[s] to move toward mandated government medicine, socialized medicine." In fact, as The Washington Post s Fact Checker blog noted on October 24, "the Clinton plan does not force Americans to accept government insurance. It offers people a choice. If they are happy with their present health plan, they can keep it. Otherwise, they can switch to the plans offered to members of Congress, or a government-run plan similar to Medicare." Blitzer did not challenge Giuliani s false statement, which echoed a similar comment Giuliani made about Clinton s health care proposal on September 17: "What [Clinton] will do is socialized medicine." PolitiFact, a project of Congressional Quarterly and the St. Petersburg Times, said Giuliani s statement was "inaccurate" since "the government would not control the system and because of the heavy involvement of private insurance companies." Additionally, Media Matters for America and several media outlets -- including CNN, Blitzer s assertion notwithstanding -- have documented that Giuliani has made other false or misleading statements throughout his presidential campaign. For instance: In a radio ad released on October 29, Giuliani claimed that when he had prostate cancer, his "chance of surviving ... in the United States [was] 82 percent" but that his "chance of surviving prostate cancer in England [was] only 44 percent under socialized medicine." But as Media Matters documented, an October 30 entry by Michael Dobbs on washingtonpost.com s Fact Checker blog noted that "the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain." Dobbs wrote that "the two countries are much closer" in terms of the "mortality rates from the disease," adding, "About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year" in both countries. Dobbs quoted Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute, saying, "When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless." Similarly, during the November 6 edition of The Situation Room, medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen noted that "all the folks we talked to -- they said [Giuliani] did not get his numbers right" and that Cancer Research U.K., the English equivalent of the American Cancer Society, asserted that Giuliani s "survival numbers are really not the operative numbers here. They said it is actually more accurate to look at the chances that -- of men dying from prostate cancer once they are diagnosed." On October 31, the New York Times reported: "Asked if Mr. Giuliani would continue to repeat the statistic, and if the advertisement would continue to run, [Giuliani spokeswoman Maria] Comella responded by e-mail: Yes. We will. " On the December 12 edition of the CBS Evening News, Giuliani claimed that "Iran is moving toward accomplishing the worst nightmare of the Cold War -- nuclear weapons in the hands of an irresponsible regime. And then they re threatening the use of these weapons, which is something unheard of." But, contrary to Giuliani s assertion, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran concluded with "high confidence" that Iran had "halt[ed]" its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and "assess[ed] with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007." The New York Times Michael Cooper asserted in a November 30 article, headlined "Citing Statistics, Giuliani Misses Time and Again," that of the "fusillade of statistics and facts" Giuliani has used "to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views," a notable portion of them "are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong." Cooper further claimed that while "all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record." In a campaign ad released on November 29, Giuliani claimed that "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues. Democrats don t know that. They don t believe that." However, numerous current and former Bush administration economists and officials have stated the opposite -- that tax cuts do not bring in more revenue. During the October 9 Republican presidential debate, Giuliani falsely claimed that Clinton "once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America." In fact, in a 1996 C-SPAN interview, Clinton agreed with author Aren Ehrenhalt s characterization of the "unfettered free market" as "the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation" -- not the "most destructive." Clinton went on to say that the "market is the driving force behind our prosperity" but that it "cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people s lives." Giuliani made similar false assertions in an August 13 interview on CNBC s Kudlow s simply not true that Clinton proposes to give out $1,000 to everybody. That sum would only go to those making $60,000 a year or less, and only if they also contribute $1,000 of their own to their 401(k) plans." Clinton s plan also "provide[s] a 50% match on the first $1000 of savings for every couple making between $60,000 and $100,000, which will be phased out after that." From the December 19 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: BLITZER: We re almost out of time. Quick couple of questions, and you can give me your honest answers, as you always do. Has Hillary Clinton been a good senator for New York state? GIULIANI: Not from my point of view, from the point of view of my ideology, my thinking, the things that I would like to see, which would be, you know, smaller government, tax cuts. She made the right vote on Iraq in -- in having to deal with Saddam Hussein. I think her backing away from that vote, I know that was popular within the Democratic Party. To me, that was very disappointing. She s worked hard, if that s what you re saying. Has she been a hardworking senator? Absolutely. And, for the short time that we overlapped, when I was the mayor, I was able to work with her, and she was always cooperative in doing what the city needed. But her ideology is so different, her wanting to move toward, you know, mandated government medicine, socialized medicine. BLITZER: If you became president, would you be able to work with her and other Democrats? GIULIANI: Of course.

On the December 20 edition of Fox News Hannity s (D-NY) brother is behind on child support payments demonstrates "Rodham family values." A December 20 New York Post article reported that Clinton s brother, Anthony Rodham, "is a deadbeat dad who owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support" to his ex-wife, Nicole Boxer, the daughter of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Referring to the article, guest co-host Mark Steyn asked Bruce: "Is Clinton fatigue already setting in early, Tammy?" Bruce responded: "Well, I think we had Clinton fatigue quite a while ago. This is obviously Rodham family values." Later, Bruce asserted: "But, you know, this isn t good for Hillary s campaign. I do think it speaks about the Rodham family itself. And I think it reflects on her just like Hillary s husband reflects on her. It s not good, neither one of them." Bruce also said: "But Nicole married this fellow, I think, pretty much knowing what she was getting. She knew who her sister-in-law was and the nature of that marriage. I don t think anybody should be surprised." Also during the segment, referring to the Post s report that Rodham "stiffed" Boxer "out of $75,000 in child support," Steyn asked Democratic strategist Bob Beckel: "It makes you, it makes you wonder, Bob, if they are such smart campaigners -- this is $75,000. Couldn t the Clinton campaign have settled all this quietly when the campaign got going before it all became public?" Beckel responded: "The answer to your question is you legally can t do that." From the December 20 edition of Fox News Hannity s get back to good old negative stuff. The New York Post, Tammy, had a story today about Anthony Rodham being a deadbeat dad. He owes $75,000 to his ex-wife. If you can t keep track of the Clinton brothers -- this is the guy we last heard from I think six or seven years ago when he was involved in a hazelnut scam in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, which is not an order of words one has cause to use terribly often. Is Clinton fatigue already setting in early, Tammy? BRUCE: Well, I think we had Clinton fatigue quite a while ago. This is obviously Rodham family values. And here you ve got the Boxer family, which has yet to say anything. But Nicole married this fellow, I think, pretty much knowing what she was getting, and she knew who her sister-in-law was and the nature of that marriage. I don t think anybody should be surprised. Also, at the same time, of course, the Boxer family is not suffering. They are not living in poverty. Some people might argue that that s a heck of a lot of money to be arguing to pay someone for alimony when they are doing moderately well themselves. That s a whole another argument. But, you know, this isn t good for Hillary s campaign. I do think it speaks about the Rodham family itself. And I think it reflects on her just like Hillary s husband reflects on her, and it s not good, neither one of them. STEYN: It makes you, it makes you wonder, Bob, if they are such smart campaigners -- this is $75,000. Couldn t the Clinton campaign have settled all this quietly when the campaign got going before it all became public? BECKEL: I m still getting over the nuts in Georgia. The answer to your question is you legally can t do that. The other point here, is this is much ado about nothing. Everybody has known about Rodham from the beginning. This guy has been a problem. If you had every sibling who caused a problem for a candidate for president to cause a real problem, you wouldn t have any candidates for president. There s always one, you know? So I don t think it means anything.

In a December 20 New York Times article, reporters Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker, and Mike McIntire wrote that "the secrecy surrounding the William J. Clinton Foundation has become a campaign issue as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination" and cited concerns "that donors could use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence." The Times reported that "federal election law prohibits foreign donations to presidential campaigns and limits Americans to $2,300 per election" in order "[t]o limit the influence of any single donor," in contrast to the "unlimited and anonymous contributions" to the Clinton Foundation by "foreigners and foreign governments," suggesting an ability on the part of foreigners and foreign governments to exercise considerable influence over candidates through contributions. The article went on to note that "the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates [UAE], and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar have made contributions of unknown amounts to the Clinton Foundation." But the Times did not note that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly criticized the Saudi government and opposed the sale of control of several U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the UAE. The article also did not mention that former President George H.W. Bush s presidential library, the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, received several donations of $1 million or more from "foreigners and foreign governments," including the Saudi royal family, the government of Kuwait, and the late president of the UAE. Hillary Clinton most recently criticized the Saudi government after a Saudi court sentenced a rape victim to 200 lashes and six months in prison for not having a male guardian with her at the time. (The Saudi king later pardoned the victim.) In a November 26 editorial, the New York Sun editorial board praised Clinton for speaking out on the issue despite the library donations from the Saudi royal family: How s this for a surprising turn in the presidential race? The candidate who has been toughest on Saudi Arabia in the past week hasn t been Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain, or Governor Romney, but Senator Clinton, the Democrat of New York. It was Mrs. Clinton who spoke out about a punishment of 200 lashes that a Saudi Arabian court gave to a 19-year-old woman victim of a gang rape by seven men. Said Mrs. Clinton, "This is an outrage. The Bush administration has refused to condemn the sentence and said it will not protest an internal Saudi decision. I urge President Bush to call on King Abdullah to cancel the ruling and drop all charges against this woman. As president I will once again make human rights an American priority around the world." Hats off to Mrs. Clinton for talking tough to the Saudis. The statement is even more newsworthy because the House of Saud has long been a patron of the Clintons. As The New York Sun reported in 2004, the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen, Abdullah Al-Dabbagh, Nasser Al-Rashid, and Walid Juffali, each donated $1 million or more to the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. President Clinton also helped secure millions of dollars in Saudi funds for the University of Arkansas. As for the Bush administration, we have given great deference to the maneuvering required of a wartime leader, as Churchill so memorably explained of his dealings with Stalin in pursuit of Hitler. But the State Department hasn t been covered with glory; here s how it went at the State Department on Tuesday: In August, Clinton asserted that the United States would need to see "evidence of genuine Saudi cooperation" with U.S. interests in the Middle East before the United States should agree to a proposed arms sale to Saudi Arabia and its neighbors. A December 4 article from The Hill reported that the "Bush administration said it would not officially notify Congress of the deal until Jan. 15, 2008," and that "[o]nce Congress is officially notified, it has 30 days to review such a deal and possibly oppose it." In an August 22 blog post on the Jerusalem Post website, Clinton stated: "I think we needed to see evidence of genuine Saudi cooperation in pursing stability in Iraq and Lebanon and in supporting our efforts to foster peace between the Israelis and Palestinian, before we move ahead with such a significant arms sale. We also need Saudi cooperation in stopping the export of radical Islam from the Kingdom." Further, in a November policy address on "America s Economic Challenges," Clinton warned that U.S. "dependence on foreign oil means we send billions of dollars to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Our trade deficit and our ballooning debts mean we send billions of dollars in payments to countries like China." She added: "These countries then turn around and use our dollars to buy chunks of our economy": Now, where exactly are countries getting the money for these funds? They re getting it from us. Our dependence on foreign oil means we send billions of dollars to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Our trade deficit and our ballooning debts mean we send billions of dollars in payments to countries like China. These countries then turn around and use our dollars to buy chunks of our economy. Today, sovereign wealth funds hold an estimated $2.5 trillion. Within a decade, it s predicted they ll hold five times that much. We have never seen anything like this, and you don t hear a peep out of the Bush administration. Now, why exactly are these sovereign wealth funds cause for concern? Well, let me ask you this: How would you feel if a foreign government used its sovereign wealth fund to buy an American car company and moved it overseas? Right now, that government might be our banker, but what if they became our boss, as well? And how would you feel if countries used their investments in America to influence our foreign policy? What if a country set out to buy companies that compete with their national industries and shut them down? I don t think we d be comfortable with our own government speculating in real estate or buying up companies, and we should be doubly uncomfortable with the idea of a foreign government doing these things in our country. In short, these sovereign wealth funds represent a potential threat to our economic sovereignty if we don t act now to assess their impact on our economy. In March 2006, Clinton joined a bipartisan effort criticizing Saudi Arabia s decision to host a meeting promoting a trade boycott of Israel. She was among a group of senators who signed a letter on the subject addressed to President Bush: Dear President Bush, We are writing to urge you to protest the decision by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to host a meeting next week in Jeddah to promote the trade boycott of Israel. Saudi Arabia is taking this action despite a public promise to you last November to drop the trade embargo. You should urge the Saudi rulers to keep their word, cancel this meeting, and end the boycott immediately. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has its headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, is hosting 57 countries at this conference next week. Saudi diplomat Salem el-Honi, High Commissioner of the OIC, recently described the purpose of the meeting in a telephone interview March 6th, 2006 with The Jerusalem Post as follows: "we will discuss coordination among the various offices to strengthen the boycott." On November 11th, 2005, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled to admit Saudi Arabia into the WTO. As you know, the WTO rules forbid any member government to participate in a boycott of a fellow WTO member. Israel is a member of WTO. Last month, in a Senate Finance Committee hearing, your trade representative, Rob Portman, said that the Saudis "have a responsibility to treat Israel as any other member of the WTO." By calling for a strengthened trade embargo against Israel, Saudi Arabia is failing to live up to its obligations to treat all WTO partners equally. Mr. President, the United States cannot remain silent on Saudi Arabia s intolerant boycott of Israel, nor should the U.S. allow the continued membership of Saudi Arabia in the WTO if they continue to violate WTO rules. Additionally, in a speech to the 2005 AIPAC Policy Conference, Clinton criticized "Saudi textbooks" that "characterize Jews as wicked" as an example of "hate and incitement and anti-Semitism ... throughout the Arab world." Clinton also opposed a 2005 Bush administration proposal to establish a bilateral trade agreement with Saudi Arabia and to pave the way for Saudi membership in the WTO. Indeed, a June 22, 2005, article in The Hill reported that Clinton was part of a Democratic effort to pressure the administration to forestall the welcoming of Saudi Arabia into the WTO and the finalization of the trade agreement: Saudi Arabia s effort to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and finalize the U.S.-Saudi free-trade agreement that will accompany its admission is coming under increasing attack from a bipartisan group of lawmakers assisted by pro-Israel lobbyists. [...] "Clearly, Congress continues to be concerned with Saudi behavior with regard to a number of issues," said Josh Block, a spokesman for AIPAC, which is "clearly supportive of attempts to bring attention to those issues prior to any ascension to the WTO by Saudi Arabia." AIPAC disagrees with ZOA [the Zionist Organization of America] on Israeli-Palestinian policy, but the two groups have united in congressional outreach that attempts to capitalize on general frustration with the Saudis by linking it to the WTO. [Then-Rep. Ben] Cardin [D-MD] maintained that the Saudis were slowing their own path to democracy. "They could do things quickly if they wanted to, to show some goodwill," Cardin said. Other senators who have pledged to back the campaign against Saudi WTO membership include Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), whose speech at last month s AIPAC Policy Conference noted that "Saudi textbooks describe Jews as wicked." Further, in opposing the proposed sale of control of the Port of New York and New Jersey to Dubai Ports World, Clinton said in a February 24, 2006, press conference: "It is clear that the Bush Administration has failed to adequately address valid national security concerns. We will do everything possible to make sure the Administration conducts the mandatory investigation required under the law and does not compromise security at our ports." As Media Matters for America noted, a March 4, 2006, Baltimore Sun article reported that Clinton was among the five Democratic senators and five Republican senators who "sent a letter to their party leaders" on March 3, 2006, "asking for cooperation in giving Congress a role in the Bush administration s latest review of Dubai Ports World s planned takeover of some operations at the port of Baltimore and five other major U.S. seaports." A statement announcing the letter is posted on Clinton s website. In a March 3, 2006, article, Newsday reported that "Bill Clinton coached United Arab Emirates officials on how to handle the Dubai ports controversy two weeks ago -- but didn t tell his wife about that conversation, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton disclosed yesterday." As Media Matters noted, after Bill Clinton s role was first reported, Hillary Clinton continued to publicly criticize the deal. The December 20 Times article also cropped a quote by Bill Clinton regarding whether foundation donors would try to influence a Hillary Clinton administration. As Media Matters noted, the article omitted the portion of the quote in which Bill Clinton asserted that he did not believe that donors would make contributions to his foundation in an attempt to influence a Hillary Clinton administration, and that if such an attempt were made, it would be ineffective. Furthermore, the Times reported that two members of the "ready pool of donors" who contributed to the Clinton library had given to the foundations of other presidents. Specifically, the article paraphrased a spokeswoman for the Anheuser-Busch Cos., whose charitable arm gave $1 million over five years to the Clinton library, asserting that Anheuser-Busch s "foundation had contributed more than $360 million to a wide array of organizations, including the Bush, Truman and Johnson presidential libraries." The Times also reported that donor Bernard L. Schwartz said "that he had contributed to other presidential libraries." However, the article did not note many of the foreign governments cited had contributed to the Bush library years earlier. Indeed, a November 4, 1997, USA Today article about the opening of Bush s library reported: Gratitude for Bush s leadership in the Persian Gulf War helped with the library fund-raising. Listed among donors of $ 1 million or more are the citizens of Kuwait, the State of Kuwait, the Bandar Bin Sultan family of Saudi Arabia, the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science, the Sultanate of Oman, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahayan and the People of the United Arab Emirates. From the December 20 Times article, headlined "In Charity and Politics, Clinton Donors Overlap": Over the last decade, former President Bill Clinton has raised more than $500 million for his foundation, allowing him to build a glass-and-steel presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., and burnish his image as an impresario of global philanthropy. The foundation has closely guarded the identities of its donors -- including one who gave $31.3 million last year. Now, the secrecy surrounding the William J. Clinton Foundation has become a campaign issue as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination with her husband as a prime source of strategy and star power. Some of her rivals argue that donors could use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence. [...] To limit the influence of any single donor, federal election law prohibits foreign donations to presidential campaigns and limits Americans to $2,300 per election. But presidential foundations are free to accept unlimited and anonymous contributions, even from foreigners and foreign governments. Indeed, the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates, and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar have made contributions of unknown amounts to the Clinton Foundation. "The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who introduced a bill to force disclosure of presidential foundation donors. The bill passed the House, 390-34, in March but stalled in the Senate. [...] On October 6, 1999, the charitable arm of the Anheuser-Busch Companies gave $200,000, the first of five payments over five years totaling $1 million, according to records filed by the company s foundation. Less than a month earlier, the company, the country s leading beer maker, had scored a major victory when the Clinton administration s Federal Trade Commission dropped a bid to regulate beer, wine and liquor advertising that critics said was aimed at under-age drinkers. Francine I. Katz, a company spokeswoman, said the donation was unrelated to any government action and that its foundation had contributed more than $360 million to a wide array of organizations, including the Bush, Truman and Johnson presidential libraries. [...] Bernard L. Schwartz, another major Democratic contributor who was then chief executive of Loral Space and Communications, gave $250,000 and pledged $750,000 more in 2000. At the time, investigators were trying to determine if Loral had improperly provided satellite technology to China. Under the Bush administration, Loral agreed to pay a civil fine of $14 million to settle the case. Mr. Schwartz, who is now also a Hillraiser, said that his donations were unconnected to Loral s troubles and added that he had contributed to other presidential libraries.

On the December 18 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, guest host John King and White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux played a video clip of former President Bill Clinton talking to reporters in Des Moines, Iowa, in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) can be heard and seen in the background saying to someone, "We ve got to go. These kids are waiting for us. Come on." King commented that he had a "[s]neaky suspicion, Suzanne, you might be able to translate that Move [sic] on to Please stop talking. " Malveaux responded, "Yes. Stop sucking the air out of my campaign, yes." Politico senior political writer Ben Smith commented on the same video on his blog. Smith wrote: A great moment captured in the background of this video, from The Page: about halfway through, Hillary, on the left edge of the screen, emerges from the SUV to drag Bill away from the press. Kind of emblematic of his role lately. From the December 18 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: MALVEAUX: But the Clinton campaign has to play a delicate balancing act. Former President Bill Clinton is causing controversy over his sharp questioning of Obama s credentials, even suggesting he -- Clinton -- had the good sense not to run until he was ready. We caught up with Mr. Clinton in Des Moines. Some of the comments you made about Barack Obama, you had said that in 1988, you weren t ready to be president. You didn t run. Are you trying to say that Barack Obama isn t ready either? BILL CLINTON: No. I m trying to say that I agree with what The Des Moines Register said, that Hillary has the best record of positive change-making in other people s lives, and I think it s important. And I think that s why they endorsed her. That s what I was trying to say. I think -- I bragged on all of them -- Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, all of them. I like them. MALVEAUX: If you rewind, during our exchange, you can hear Senator Clinton urging her husband to move on. BILL CLINTON: Hillary has the best record of positive change-making in other people s lives -- HILLARY CLINTON: We ve got to go. These kids are waiting for us. Come on. BILL CLINTON: -- and I think that s why then endorsed her. That s what I was trying to say. I think -- I brag -- [end video clip] MALVEAUX: And John, there s some political analysts who suggest that they do move on, that that is a good idea, because they say while President -- the former President Clinton, he does have a lot of credibility within the party, they say going too negative or pushing too hard, too aggressive, might actually backfire for his wife. John. KING: Sneaky suspicion, Suzanne, you might be able to translate that "Move on" to "Please stop talking." Suzanne Malveaux. MALVEAUX: Yes. "Stop sucking the air out of my campaign," yes. KING: Catching the candidates in Iowa and the candidates spouses, Suzanne Malveaux. Thank you, Suzanne.

During the December 18 edition of his nationally syndicated talk show, conservative radio host Mark Levin said, "I see on the home page of our friend Drudge -- the Drudge Report -- Developing, National Enquirer: John Edwards love child scandal. They actually have a side view of the woman on the Drudge Report." After asserting that "[s]he definitely looks pregnant," Levin added, "Now, I don t know if this is true or not." As Media Matters for America documented, Slate.com blogger Mickey Kaus and Internet gossip Matt Drudge touted a December 19 National Enquirer article that reports former Edwards campaign worker Rielle Hunter is six months pregnant and that according to the Enquirer, "she s told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby!" As Media Matters further documented, neither Drudge nor Kaus has noted that the Enquirer story to which they link states, "[Edwards confidante Andrew] Young -- a 41-year-old married man with young children -- now claims HE is the father of Rielle s baby!" The article also states, " Andrew Young is the father of Ms. Hunter s unborn child, declared his Washington, D.C.-based attorney." During the segment, Levin speculated about whether the story was "another Hillary Rotten [sic] Clinton Plant" and asked, "Who else would leak this to the National Enquirer, whether it be true of false. It would be the Clintonoids with their hemorrhoids, because this is the kind of game they play." From the December 18 edition of ABC Radio Networks The Mark Levin Show: LEVIN: I see on the home page of our friend Drudge -- the Drudge Report -- "Developing, National Enquirer: John Edwards love child scandal." They actually have a side view of the woman on the Drudge Report. She definitely looks pregnant. Now, I don t know if this is true or not. For all I know, this is another Hillary Rotten Clinton plant. I mean, they are trying to dig up dirt on everybody, aren t they? Who else would leak this to the National Enquirer, whether it be true or false? It would be the Clintonoids with their hemorrhoids, because this is the kind of game they play. The Republicans are too busy battling with each other. They re not focused on slip-and-fall lawyer John Edwards. In fact, they could care less about John Edwards, because he won t be the nominee. Certainly unlikely. Hillary is desperate to win in Iowa, if not the first spot, the second spot. If she comes in third, that s a big-time loser. And that s what some people in Iowa are predicting -- not me, I have no idea. Anyway, the fact of the matter is -- you know, I wonder if any reporter will ask Hillary Rotten, her thighness, if her campaign s behind this, too. "Mark, how can you -- " Listen, folks, to dig up kindergarten records on Barack Obama and to have drug questions planted, you know, why wouldn t they plant something like this, whether it be true or false? I don t know. Time will tell. Drudge has up there that it s developing. The baby -- I mean the story.

On the October 21 edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, while discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) proposal to roll back a portion of the Bush tax cuts to pay for her health insurance plan, host Chris Matthews stated: "I think it s time for me to get in trouble again. ... I m thinking about a woman who lives in the suburbs; she may not work outside the home. They re talking around election time -- the husband and the wife." Matthews, speaking first in the voice of the hypothetical wife, said: " I sort of like this Hillary, the first woman president. She s pro-choice. And the husband says, You know, dear, you know, this is going to kill our tax bracket. You know that tuition thing we pay every couple of years for the kids, every year, we can t do that if we get a higher tax bracket. We have to pay more money. " Matthews then asked Washington Post Writers Group syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker: "So, could the tax issue -- Hillary s threat to raise taxes -- throw a lot of women and men from the suburbs back into the Republican column?" From the October 21 edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show: MATTHEWS: I think it s time for me to get in trouble again. Kathleen, I m thinking about a woman who lives in the suburbs; she may not work outside the home. They re talking around election time -- the husband and the wife -- you know, she says, "I sort of like this Hillary, the first woman president. She s pro-choice." And the husband says, "You know, dear, you know, this is going to kill our tax bracket. You know that tuition thing we pay every couple of years for the kids, every year, we can t do that if we get a higher tax bracket. We have to pay more money." So, could the tax issue -- Hillary s threat to raise taxes -- throw a lot of women and men from the suburbs back into the Republican column? Am I being too tricky here? PARKER: Yeah, you may be too tricky. First of all, I don t know what your assumption is here that I would know about women in the suburbs who don t work. [laughter] PARKER: I don t have any recent poll material. MATTHEWS: Those club members that come in, you know, late in the afternoon. PARKER: Oh, those guys. Yeah, well, nobody wants to pay more taxes, let s face it. But -- and, yeah, I think it s not helpful for Hillary at this point to say that. And you don t necessarily need -- there are other ways to go about this health care issue. I mean, what if one of these Republicans would sort of cut through the clutter and say, "Look, I m going to give you your own money to buy health care, and I m not going to tax that money," that would be a whole new scenario and a different talking point for people, and that, I think, has a lot of power.

Numerous media reports have claimed that Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani "supports abortion rights" or is "pro-choice" without noting, as Media Matters for America documented, that Giuliani has repeatedly said that if elected president, he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges and has specifically pledged to use as "model appointments" Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- both of whom have declared their support for overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision finding that the Constitution protects abortion rights -- among others. In the past two days alone, reports by the Associated Press, The Economist, Slate.com , USA Today, NPR, CNN, and CBS have characterized Giuliani as a supporter of abortion rights: On the October 18 broadcast of NPR s Morning Edition, Fox News contributor and NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams said that Giuliani is "just so unusual -- he supports abortion rights, gay rights, gun control." On the October 18 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer said that Giuliani is "having serious problems winning over some Christian conservatives because he supports abortion rights and gay rights." On the October 18 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric said that Giuliani "would be the first Republican nominee in three decades to support abortion rights." An October 18 Associated Press article said that Giuliani "angers some conservatives because of his support of abortion rights and past stands on gay rights and gun control." An October 18 Slate article said that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney s (R) "flip-flops" were Romney s "biggest liability -- on par with Rudy Giuliani s pro-choice stance on abortion." An October 18 Economist article said that Giuliani "is pro-choice." An October 19 USA Today article said that Giuliani "supports legal abortion." But a July 17 Giuliani campaign press release stated that Giuliani "pledg[ed] his commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges." The press release went on to state: "The Mayor, who served in President Ronald Reagan s Justice Department, pledges to use U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and current Supreme Court Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and [Samuel] Alito as model appointments." Similarly, in a letter to the editor of National Review, Giuliani campaign policy director Bill Simon stated: "[G]iven the opportunity, a President Giuliani would appoint strict-constructionist judges who will follow in the philosophical footsteps of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia, and Chief Justice Roberts." Nominating judges that Giuliani and his campaign call "strict constructionist" is also one of Giuliani s "12 Commitments." Scalia and Thomas have both stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In an opinion joined by Scalia, Thomas wrote that the decision in Roe was "grievously wrong" in a dissent to Stenberg v. Carhart, a decision striking down a Nebraska law that, in the majority s words, "ban[s] partial birth abortion. " As Media Matters has noted, President Bush has reportedly named Scalia as his model for appointing Supreme Court justices. Roberts and Alito, Bush s two appointees to the Supreme Court, have not yet written or joined any Supreme Court opinions discussing whether Roe was correctly decided. Both Roberts and Alito joined with the majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, but neither of them joined Thomas concurring opinion in that case, again joined by Scalia, in which Thomas said, "I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court s abortion jurisprudence, including ... Roe v. Wade ... has no basis in the Constitution. Moreover, as Media Matters has noted, Giuliani has vacillated on the issue at various points in his career as a public official, and this year alone, has wavered on the desirability of the Supreme Court s overturning Roe v. Wade. From the October 18 broadcast of NPR s Morning Edition: DEBORAH AMOS (NPR foreign correspondent): But, Juan, the Republicans have a leading candidate and that s Rudy Giuliani. It s just that he doesn t quite fit the classic Republican mold. Is that where the problem is? WILLIAMS: That s exactly right. I mean, he s consistently led the national polls. Giuliani has not lost the lead to either [former Sen.] Fred Thompson [TN] or to candidates who ve been in the race for some time, such as Senator John McCain [AZ] and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Those people have not made a powerful case to the national audience of major Republican donors or Republican decision-makers and elected officials. They really also have not made the case that they can defeat any of the front-runners on the Democratic side. Giuliani makes the case consistently that he runs best against the likes of [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [NY] and [Sen.] Barack Obama [IL], as well as [former Sen.] John Edwards [NC]. But getting back to your point that the reason that the party has been slow to embrace him as the frontrunner. He s just so unusual -- he supports abortion rights, gay rights, gun control. He doesn t fit the family values-evangelical template for a Republican presidential candidate. From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the October 18 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: BLITZER: Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is leading the Republican pack in many of the national polls, but he s having serious problems winning over some Christian conservatives because he supports abortion rights and gay rights. I talked about that and more with Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. His latest book is entitled The Divided States of America. I asked him if he could vote for Rudy Giuliani if he gets the nomination. From the October 18 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: COURIC: Different priorities may mean a new acceptance of a new kind of GOP candidate. Current front-runner Rudy Giuliani, who would be the first Republican nominee in three decades to support abortion rights, is almost tied for first among white evangelical voters. If Giuliani succeeds, Land says the party might be over, and a third candidate, a real social conservative, could emerge. From the October 18 Associated Press article: As for [Sen. Sam] Brownback s [KS] anticipated departure from the Republican presidential primary race, Giuliani said he liked and respected his rival, praising him for his contribution to GOP debates. "You know I m an optimist, so I think I can win over some of his supporters," said Giuliani, who angers some conservatives because of his support of abortion rights and past stands on gay rights and gun control. Giuliani was in Chicago to take part in a small round-table discussion with about a dozen elected officials and health care leaders at the University of Illinois-Chicago to discuss medical malpractice and other legal system reforms. From the October 18 Slate article: But ask voters about Romney s flip-flops, and they speak out loud. In a recent Des Moines Register poll, likely caucus attendees listed Romney s multiple positions as his biggest liability -- on par with Rudy Giuliani s pro-choice stance on abortion. In a Pew Center poll, only 12 percent of respondents thought of Mitt Romney when the word honest was presented to them, the lowest of the four major Republican candidates. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that only 13 percent of Republicans find Mitt Romney honest and trustworthy, also the lowest of the four major Republican candidates. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 15 percent of adults found Mitt Romney to be the most honest -- again, the bottom of the field. From the October 18 Economist article: Rudy Giuliani s presidential campaign was endorsed by Rick Perry, the governor of Texas. The backing, from such a prominent conservative, should help Mr Giuliani, who is pro-choice, in his effort to win over the Republican rank-and-file during the primaries. Iowa s Republicans set January 3rd as the date for their party caucus, earlier than had been expected. The Democrats are considering the same date to hold their vote. See article From the October 19 USA Today article: Christian conservatives have not coalesced behind any Republican and have objections to most of them. Rudy Giuliani supports legal abortion, a deal breaker for many. Fred Thompson and John McCain oppose a federal ban on same-sex marriage and led efforts to limit political spending by interest groups. Mitt Romney is Mormon -- troubling to some Christians -- and didn t oppose abortion until 2004. "None of these guys are running because they re social conservatives," says Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator. "They all have problems on these issues, and most of them aren t comfortable talking about them."

During the October 18 edition of MSNBC s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Sean Hannity the "winner" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, not disclosing, during a 21-minute interview with Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and his wife, Judith, on October 16 , that he has reportedly helped raise money for Giuliani s presidential campaign. Olbermann stated: "Another Hannity interview of Rudy Giuliani this week -- yet another occasion when Hannity and Fox and [Fox News chairman and chief executive] Roger Ailes did not disclose that, on August [9th], Giuliani held a big-ticket fundraiser in Cincinnati and the man introducing him to the high-paying guests was Sean Hannity." Olbermann said Hannity "has now dropped down one more notch to Rudy Giuliani fundraising meat puppet," and that "even the other Republican presidential hopefuls should be screaming bloody murder about this." From the October 18 edition of MSNBC s Countdown with Keith Olbermann: OLBERMANN: But the winner: Sean Hannity of "Fixed News." The next time somebody tells you Fox is not dedicated to electing Republicans and sliming Democrats, answer with this anecdote: Another Hannity interview of Rudy Giuliani this week -- yet another occasion when Hannity and Fox and Roger Ailes did not disclose that, on August 19th [sic], Giuliani held a big-ticket fundraiser in Cincinnati and the man introducing him to the high-paying guests was Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity, who his bosses insist is not a journalist, but just a conservative commentator, and who has now dropped down one more notch to Rudy Giuliani fundraising meat puppet. I mean, even the other Republican presidential hopefuls should be screaming bloody murder about this. Sean Hannity: today s "Worst Person in the World."

In recent days, numerous media outlets have reported on an anonymously sourced allegation that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) eavesdropped on a phone conversation involving Bill Clinton s political opponents during his 1992 presidential campaign -- an allegation the Clinton campaign has said is "categorically untrue." In the book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions" and described the tape as having been "obtained under questionable circumstances." According to the endnotes of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta s only source for this claim is an "[a]uthor interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing in 2006." Some in the media seized on the allegation before the book was even officially released and many failed to note that the sole basis for the claim is a single unnamed source describing events that allegedly occurred 14 years earlier. After numerous reports in June, the allegation did not surface again until an October 16 article in The Hill, headlined "GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping." The Hill article quoted an anonymous "GOP official" accusing Clinton of "hypocrisy" because she allegedly eavesdropped on political opponents but opposes the Bush administration s efforts to expand the government s authority to conduct electronic surveillance of communications involving people in the United States without a warrant. In reporting on the allegations, several media outlets -- including the following -- failed to note that Gerth and Van Natta sourced the claim to only one, unnamed person: Slate.com, National Review, CNN s Paula Zahn Now, ABC News The Note, Fox News Fox s Tucker, The Washington Times, and The American Spectator. From Her Way, Pages 93-94: Hillary s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries;10 she vetted senior campaign aides;11 and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.12 A lot had changed since the moment eighteen years earlier when Hillary had been aghast at the suggestion that the Clinton campaign use underhanded means to garner votes in rural Arkansas. Yet again, Bill Clinton s chances were being jeopardized by rumors of his womanizing. And yet again, it was up to Hillary to minimize the threat -- and if that meant listening to a tape that had been obtained under questionable circumstances, then she would just deal with it. Associated endnotes: 10. Numerous 1992 campaign memoranda addressed to Hillary Rodham Clinton. 11. David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace (New York: Scribner, 2001), 20. 12. Author interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing in 2006. May 31 In a May 31 Slate.com blog post, Mickey Kaus wrote that he had "obtained a copy of page 93 of the unreleased Gerth-Van Natta Hillary Clinton book" and highlighted the allegation that Hillary Clinton "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack." Kaus speculated, "Isn t it not so legal?... I m not an expert, but it looks like a potential minefield for Hillary." Kaus did not note the basis for the allegation -- a single anonymous source -- nor did he note that, if he had only page 93 and not the endnotes, he was unable to determine the sourcing for the allegation. From the May 31 post (bold and italics in original): Hillary, Eavesdropper? Big Mama is Listening! Kf has obtained a copy of page 93 of the unreleased Gerth-Van Natta Hillary Clinton book, which describes how, during the 92 campaign, Hillary herself "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions." Hmm. Phone-monitoring was a key investigative method of what notorious California-based Clinton-friendly private eye and problem solver? Just asking! ... P.S.: I m not talking about Jack Palladino, who is explicitly mentioned in the footnotes as working for the Clinton team and would not have to be described as a "supporter." But of course, it could still be him, or any other "supporter." (Nor is it clear if the phones were being monitored in Arkansas or D.C..) ... I don t know how common cell-phone-monitoring was in 1992. ... P.P.S.: Wasn t there a character in Joe Klein s Primary Colors who did this sort of thing? ... P.P.P.S.: Isn t it not so legal? ... See also this exegesis of the elements of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511 (1) (a). I m not an expert, but it looks like a potential minefield for Hillary. Think what Patrick Fitzgerald could have done with the provision criminalizing anyone who "intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication" knowing it was obtained illegally. [E.A.] Maybe it all depends on what the uses of "uses" are! ... Did I bury the lede? ... Update: Actually, say the profs at the Volokh Conspiracy, it depends on whether they were cell calls or cordless calls! Gerth and Van Natta say "cell." I don t think Hillary can take much comfort in Volokh s analysis. ... 5:15 P.M. link June 1-6 During this period, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, Fox News host Sean Hannity, Fox News contributor and nationally syndicated columnist Dick Morris, and Politico reporter Ben Smith all seized on Kaus post. On the June 1 edition of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh cited Kaus posting and claimed, "The Clintons have been engaged in illegal wiretapping. They re monitoring cell phone frequencies so they hear calls from enemies of the Clintons plotting their next attack and so forth." From the June 1 edition (subscription required) of The Rush Limbaugh Show : LIMBAUGH: Mickey Kaus. Where was this -- Slate.com. Headline: "Hillary, caught eavesdropping?" Page 93 from the yet-unreleased Gerth-Van Natta Hillary Clinton book has quite a bombshell, Kaus writes. Hillary Clinton "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with her husband Bill. Bill s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions." So the Clintons were out there just like that couple, the grandparents driving on I-75 here in Florida heading up to Jacksonville to do some Christmas shopping, and like every one of us they had a cell phone monitor in their car, right there in the dashboard, and they decided to tune in, and all of a sudden, just quite by accident, they said they caught a moment of history. They listened to Newt Gingrich talking to John Boehner. By the way, who was it, Jim Moran got this? Was it Moran or McDermott? Yeah, it was McDermott, Baghdad Jim McDermott. Anyway, this couple, just the sweetest people you d ever want to run into, grandparents, accidentally tuning around their cell phone receiver in the car, like we all have in our cars and hear this conversation between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner, "Gee, this is history, what do we do with this?" And they decided to give it to Baghdad Jim McDermott, congressman from Washington, who then gave it to The New York Times, which then published the transcript of the conversation. So far McDermott has been in lawsuits, has lost up to 800-grand now in terms of reimbursing Boehner for all this. We find out now the Clintons have been doing the same thing. The Clintons have been engaged in illegal wiretapping. They re monitoring cell phone frequencies so they hear calls from enemies of the Clintons plotting their next attack and so forth. Now, don t get carried away here, my friends. This will not affect a single Hillary supporter or a single drive-by editor. It s like that picture that s out there. Hillary was making a speech yesterday and somebody on the graphic behind her misspelled the word "tomorrow," with two M s in it, and Hillary is up there making a speech. Now, she didn t misspell it, but she s standing in front of it. If this were a Republican this would be all over the news today as in Dan Quayle and potato. So the drive-bys are not going to care about Hillary and, you know, monitoring people s cell phone calls, but what this sort of shows us is this: The last three major wiretap stories on American citizens have been -- well, how many of you can name the three? What are the big three wiretap stories on American citizens? Going back a number of years. No, no, no, not the NSA, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Number one, Bobby Kennedy wiretapping Martin Luther King. Yes, he did. They wiretapped Martin Luther King and they were collecting a dossier on his infidelities. The Kennedy attorney general -- the Kennedy Justice Department was doing it. Bobby Kennedy wiretapped Martin Luther King. Then we had Baghdad Jim McDermott passing on wiretaps of Republicans, as we ve talked about. And now Hillary Clinton wiretapping anybody she says is an enemy, monitoring their cell phone calls with a cell phone receiver. Chairman Meow, we call her, Chairman Mao, Chairman Meow strikes again. And nobody s going to care. Well, it s going to be in the book. The book s not yet released, but Kaus has a copy of it and has put this on the website. We ll see what kind of traction it gets. In a June 1 blog post, Smith noted Kaus posting and the allegations of eavesdropping, but later added an "Update": "From a Clinton 92 source, no longer in Hillaryland: I never heard, saw or came across anything remotely like this.... Believe me, if a campaign or political operation had the capacity to monitor the cell phones of the opposition, people would be doing a lot more than listening to the supposed recordings. " Later, in a June 6 Politico article on Her Way and another recently released Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Knopf, June 2007), by Carl Bernstein, Smith wrote that the "[m]ost tantalizing charge" in either book was that " Her Way reports that during the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack." From Smith s June 1 post: Clinton eavesdropping? Mickey Kaus seizes on a passage from the Gerth/Van Natta book to speculate about private investigators and possible crimes, but I m more interested in getting a bit more detail: Hillary, in 1992, "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions." I have calls out to James Carville and a couple of others, and am of course waiting eagerly by the phone. UPDATE: From a Clinton 92 source, no longer in Hillaryland: "I never heard, saw or came across anything remotely like this.... Believe me, if a campaign or political operation had the capacity to monitor the cell phones of the opposition, people would be doing a lot more than listening to the supposed recordings." From Smith s June 6 article: Two new Hillary Rodham Clinton biographies contain a series of revelations. In "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton," New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. report on Hillary s shifting approach toward the Iraq war and lingering questions about her billing practices as an Arkansas lawyer. The book also demonstrates the then-first lady s deep involvement in working to beat back the myriad scandals that beset President Bill Clinton s administration through much of the 1990s. In "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," Watergate sleuth Carl Bernstein has more personal revelations, ranging from her father s exaggerations about his past to the fact that Bill considered leaving her for another woman in the late 1980s. [...] Here are some highlights. [...] Most tantalizing charge: "Her Way" reports that during the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions." (Former Clinton aides say the anecdote is unfamiliar.) On the June 4 edition of Fox News Hannity posting, claiming, "Slate reports that, on Page 93 of one of these new books coming out, the Gerth-Van Natta book, that they literally talk about Hillary and describe a scene where she would listen to recorded audiotape conversations taken by her operatives." Morris then claimed, "The whole secret police, yes. Hillary was in charge of the secret police. Hillary was in charge of the eavesdropping, the damage-control operation." From the June 4 edition of Fox News Hannity t think he d win. When I realized I should have had more faith in him and that he was, indeed, a serious candidate, it was too late. He had his consultants all set, and it made no sense to dislodge them. That was a fight I d never win. Besides, they had had the courage to bet on Clinton and I hadn t, so they deserved the right to win. June 8 On June 8, Her Way was officially released. June 12 In a June 12 review of Her Way and A Woman In Charge, National Review White House correspondent Byron York wrote that "Gerth and Van Natta report that on one occasion Mrs. Clinton listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of Clinton adversaries talking on the phone about the next possible bimbo eruption." York added, "Who knew that Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of warrantless wiretapping?" He did not address the sourcing of the allegation. From York s review: The Defense Team s job was to knock down any allegation, no matter how well founded, about Bill Clinton s girlfriends, his avoidance of the draft, Whitewater, Hillary Clinton s legal work -- anything that might hurt the campaign. And to do it by any means necessary, legal or not: Gerth and Van Natta report that on one occasion Mrs. Clinton listened to a "secretly recorded audiotape" of Clinton adversaries talking on the phone about the next possible bimbo eruption. "Bill s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones," Gerth and Van Natta add, "and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions." Who knew that Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of warrantless wiretapping? [...] Underneath her appointment to the health-care initiative was the suspicion, held both inside and outside the White House, that Bill Clinton had to give his wife something pretty big because he owed her so much for the work she did knocking down those bimbo eruptions. She put her own credibility on the line, and under her supervision the Defense Team had procured false affidavits, kept up with that anonymous domestic spying, and crafted denial after denial. Also on June 12, Gerth and Van Natta appeared on CNN s Paula Zahn Now to discuss their book. Host Paul Zahn teased the segment by saying, "Wait until you hear what they [Gerth and Van Natta] have to say about her listening to secretly recorded phone conversations." Zahn later asked Gerth and Van Natta, "So, if she would do these kinds of sneaky things to protect this man that she wanted to see become president, what might she resort to as president?" Zahn did not discuss the sourcing of the claim. From the June 12 edition of Paula Zahn Now: ZAHN: The authors of the hottest and most controversial book yet out about Hillary Clinton. Wait until you hear what they have to say about her listening to secretly recorded phone conversations. [...] ZAHN: There is something you had in the book that I hadn t heard about before -- and this was the idea that -- how she was involved in President Clinton s run for the presidency, when he was governor, going back to 1992. And you wrote, "She listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics, plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill." And then you go on to say: "Bill Clinton s chances were being jeopardized by rumors of his womanizing and yet again, it was up to Hillary to minimize the threat. And if that meant listening to a tape that had to be obtained under questionable circumstances, then she would just deal with it." So, if she would do these kinds of sneaky things to protect this man that she wanted to see become president, what might she resort to as president? GERTH: Well, I think the 92 effort is interesting because she headed up a defense team that operated sort of secretly, dealing with her husband and her liabilities, whether it was the draft record, the womanizing, or her legal practice -- and the idea was to do whatever had to be done to get her husband elected president. ZAHN: So, it didn t matter that the conversations were secretly recorded and probably illegal? GERTH: Well, we don t know whether they were illegal and we don t say so in the book, but the more interesting thing is she had come a long way in the years in Arkansas. She started in 1974 as an idealist and working in Bill s first campaign and wasn t really getting mixed into the political fray and, by 1992, when he was running for president, she was prepared to do most anything to get him elected president. And we show in the book that, as a senator, she s not been terribly behold tonight rules sometimes and has an attitude as described us to by people in the Senate as cavalier about the rules and not necessarily following them all the time. June 13 On the June 13 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh again mentioned the eavesdropping allegations, saying that Clinton had an "elite group" in 1992 that engaged in "a warrantless wiretap program." He also cited York s review of Her Way. From the June 13 edition (subscription required) of The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: I have shared with you constantly my question: What in the world is it that recommends this woman to be president of the United States other than her name? Other than her last name? And the fact that she s owed this because she s put up with so much -- I mean, there s so much mythology around this woman. That she could have had this great career on her own. She could have been elected president or senator as early as 1992. She came out of Wellesley. She came out of Yale. And she gave it all up for this hayseed hick in Arkansas, then she had to put up with his peccadilloes, and basically keep his [unintelligible]. These books talk about how she ran the bimbo eruptions operation. It wasn t Betsy Wright. Betsy Wright was the public face in it, but it was Hillary running the bimbo operations in 1992, trying to find all these women who d might pop up and accuse Clinton of having dalliances with them. And she was in charge of getting hold of them, getting signed affidavits saying it wasn t true and -- you know, who knows what kind of threats. And they were wiretapping cell phone calls, Hillary and this unit -- it was a group in addition to the war room. The war room was Clinton and [Paul] Begala and [George] Stephanopoulos -- or Carville and Stephanopoulos and Begala. And Hillary had a further elite group -- forget the name of it -- but they were intercepting, monitoring cell phone calls of Clinton opponents, trying to find out what their next plan was -- get a head start on it. And that s a warrantless wiretap program that they were engaged in. Well, that s domestic surveillance -- wireless domestic surveillance, wireless wiretapping. Whatever. I mean, Byron York s story, it s in National Review Online, NRO, it s just a devastating review of the information in these two books that the drive-bys haven t touched. June 19 On June 19, Gerth and Van Natta appeared on Hannity s so much that I want to get to -- including their 20-year plan or strategy, as you call it here -- but a lot of press has come up to Page 93 in this book, where there were these recorded phone conversations that she had listened to about the potential of another Clinton woman being exposed. More importantly, the fact that she may have been listening to conversations that were recorded illegally caught my attention. GERTH: Well, we don t say that they were illegal. HANNITY: You don t say that, but I m assuming they may have been. GERTH: This was part of an effort in 1992, where she headed up something called "the defense team," which was really designed to manage the liabilities of both her and her husband. He had his draft record issues, and we uncovered new documents that they withheld from the press. He, of course, had womanizing issues, and she had her own issues with her law practice and her finances. And the idea in 1992 was, "Do whatever it takes; cover it up; suppress it; keep it out of the press," and we, in fact, when you talked about retribution in 1992, Hillary told someone on the campaign, "If you let out these records" -- there were tax returns which they later made public -- HANNITY: Right. Right. GERTH: -- "you will never work in Democratic politics again." ALAN COLMES (co-host): By the way, a lot of this is unsourced. You don t mention names. You don t -- GERTH: That is not unsourced. That is on the record. October 16On October 16, the article in The Hill reported that "Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of government surveillance." The article added: "Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents." The article also quoted an anonymous "GOP official" saying, "Hillary Clinton s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year." The Hill added, "Gerth told The Hill that he learned of the incident in 2006 when he interviewed a former campaign aide present at the tape playing. He has not revealed the aide s identity." The Republican National Committee (RNC) highlighted the story on its website. Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked to the Hill story by 7:04 a.m. ET, with the headline "Republicans targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping..." ABC News The Note also highlighted The Hill s article: "Here comes the next piece of the RNC assault on Clinton." The Note also added that a "Republican source tells The Note that the Arkansas Republican Party today will be asking the state attorney general to investigate that allegation." The Note made no mention of the sourcing of the allegation. By 8:29 a.m. ET, Drudge had linked to The Note with the headline "GOP Asks Arkansas AG to Investigate..." Following The Hill s report, the Arkansas Republican Party issued a press release that "called on State Attorney General Dustin McDaniel to investigate the fact that New York Senator Hillary Clinton may have eavesdropped and recorded political opponents telephone conversations while her husband was Governor of Arkansas." Dennis Milligan, chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas, asserted: "This is a very serious allegation, which is why Arkansas Attorney General McDaniel should investigate whether or not Hillary Clinton eavesdropped and recorded her and her husband s political opponents phone conversations without legal authority." The release also quoted Milligan stating: "If these allegations are true, Arkansans have a right to ask the Senator from New York: why were you willing to break the law and use wiretapping for personal political gain, but you re unwilling to vote for measures that would provide our nation s intelligence community with the tools they need to catch potential terrorists, as they plot and plan to kill Americans?" The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, Saul Anuzis, also highlighted the Hill article in a post on the Michigan Republican Party blog. Anuzis wrote: "This is the highest form of hypocrisy and is a clear example of how the Clintons will stop at nothing to recapture the White House. For Senator Clinton to deprive federal agencies of tools that can be used against terrorists after she has used similar tactics herself -- illegally -- is an absolute outrage. Senator Clinton owes the American people an apology for this unacceptable behavior, and her supporters, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, a former attorney general, should not endorse someone who so cavalierly flaunts the law for political gain." Similarly, the Georgia Republican Party also issued a press release citing The Hill s article and claimed that Hillary was engaged in "hypocrisy." From the press release: " Hillary s hypocrisy knows no bounds, said Sue. P Everhart, Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. How she can think it is wrong to allow our intelligence professionals to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks through intercepted conversations between plotters, but not think it is wrong to spy on her political opponents is beyond me. " Fox News Fox s a bit of hypocrisy going on any time Hillary comes up and criticizes the president or the administration about amending the FISA laws." Doocy replied -- repeating a falsehood commonly leveled against congressional Democrats, that they oppose any wiretapping -- "That s right, because she has refused to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in on conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot to blow us up." Neither Kilmeade nor Doocy, nor co-host Gretchen Carlson discussed the sourcing of the allegation. At 9:02 a.m. ET, blogger David Knowles discussed the Hill article in a blog post on AOL s Political Machine blog, writing, "the timing of the release of this fifteen year-old-scandal, as anonymously sourced in a widely panned book, couldn t be worse for Mrs. Clinton." He noted unanswered questions about the allegation, writing: "If the allegation of listening in on an enemy s phone conversation was true, this would, indeed, make her something of a hypocrite. In fact, it would make her a criminal, just as Verizon may yet be found to have broken the law. So, the obvious question is, why hasn t law enforcement looked into the matter? Another intriguing aspect of the story is, why didn t we hear about the other woman named in the purported phone call? If she indeed existed, why wouldn t the Clintons foes trot her out into the light of day as threatened?" The Atlantic s Marc Ambinder also noted the Hill article in a blog post at 10:30 a.m. ET. Ambinder described the article as "[a] story placed by the RNC in today s Hill." After quoting from the article, which opened by stating that "Republicans plan to seize on [the] allegation" from Her Way, Ambinder wrote: So -- what will the Republicans seize, who s doing the seizing, and why telegtraph [sic] your plans in a newspaper article? 1. This is a trial balloon floated by the RNC to see whether anyone bites. 2. The RNC is willing to associate itself with the Clinton sex stuff. Also: the Clinton s [sic] tenure in Arkansas is fair game. 3. The RNC wants state parties to start challenging Clinton. As if on cue, this news release came this morning from the Republican Party of Arkansas: "Today, Republican Party of Arkansas Chairman Dennis Milligan called on State Attorney General Dustin McDaniel to investigate the fact that New York Senator Hillary Clinton may have eavesdropped and recorded political opponents telephone conversations while her husband was Governor of Arkansas." 4. The RNC doesn t mind the world knowing that they re going to throw everything, including the kitchen plumbing, at Hillary Clinton. 5. From a reader: "My guess on that RNC thing was that they did it that way because they knew it would get them a story on Drudge -- classic ploy, "we plan to use this in an attack" sources say ... whereas if they d actually used it in an attack, it would have been widely ignored, because it s so thin." Discussing the Hill article during his radio show, Limbaugh asserted: "So, she s out there monitoring these phone calls about potential bimbo eruptions. So, the point of this story in The Hill is that the Republicans are gonna go after her on this. Van Natta and Gerth totally stand by this in their book." In addition, Limbaugh claimed that Clinton is "the most-cheated on woman in the history of the world, folks. And she knew it. And she let it happen right in front of her eyes -- right behind her back. She let it happen. She let it happen. She was -- she allowed herself to be humiliated and disgraced because that s what it required to get her to where she is now. She had to keep her husband in office wherever he was, if she was ever to have a chance to go anywhere." From the October 16 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: So, Hillary was doing this. She was in charge of the bimbo eruptions. Everybody thinks that it was Betsy Wright that was in charge of the bimbo eruptions. It was Hillary because she knew about them. She s the most-cheated on woman in the history of the world, folks. And she knew it. And she let it happen right in front of her eyes -- right behind her back. She let it happen. She let it happen. She was -- she allowed herself to be humiliated and disgraced because that s what it required to get her to where she is now. She had to keep her husband in office wherever he was, if she was ever to have a chance to go anywhere. So, she s out there monitoring these phone calls about potential bimbo eruptions. So, the point of this story in The Hill is that the Republicans are gonna go after her on this. Van Natta and Gerth totally stand by this in their book. "A Republican official said that Hillary Clinton s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that she would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents but refused to allow our own intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and planned to kill us. "Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year." She s made it very plain -- they ve made it -- Republicans have made it plain that they re not gonna forget about this. As Media Matters for America noted, on MSNBC s Tucker, host Tucker Carlson and guests A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, and Politico staff writer Josephine Hearn discussed the allegation without noting it was anonymously sourced. The segment also featured a series of false and baseless claims, including Carlson s attribution of the controversy to a "new book" (in fact, the book is more than four months old) and Hearn s claim that the Clinton campaign "apparently ... never challenged anything in the book at all" (in fact, the campaign has challenged this claim and at least one other). As Media Matters also noted, minutes before the Tucker segment, on Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle noted that Clinton s presidential campaign "flatly denied" the allegation and quoted Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson saying, "This story is categorically untrue." Special Report aired an audio clip of Gerth saying, "The person who told us about this was present at the playing of the tape recording," but did not otherwise discuss the sourcing of the allegation. CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck led his Headline News program, Glenn Beck, by discussing the story. Beck compared Clinton to former President Richard Nixon and suggested that she had a "bag of campaign tricks," including "wiretapping equipment, stolen cell-phone calls, and a special set of rules that apparently only she gets to follow." Beck added that "Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. And while her sex-scandled husband probably likes to watch, it seems that Senator Clinton prefers to listen." Later, Beck baselessly claimed that Clinton "seems to have purchased a high-tech digital scanner to monitor and record cell-phone calls." Beck also repeated the false assertion that "Hillary s campaign staff has not disputed one single thing in this book [Her Way]," when, in fact, as Media Matters has noted, the campaign has challenged this claim and at least one other. Beck then hosted Gerth to discuss the allegations made in his book. Beck asked Gerth why he "believe[d his] book, when it first came out, kind of just went away." Gerth replied that "the Clinton camp spent a lot of time trying to knock down and sort of either ignore or suppress the book, as the case may be." Gerth added: "But I ll leave it for others to decide why some books fail and others don t." During the interview, Gerth said that the allegation was "based on someone who was in the room," and Beck pursued no further discussion of its sourcing. Later, Beck interviewed National Public Radio commentator John Ridley about the allegations and asked, "Who do you think is behind the releasing of this report now? ... Is this the GOP waking up and saying, Uh-oh, there s really nobody on the other side maybe to take her down? Or is this possibly somebody like [Democratic presidential candidates Barack] Obama or [John] Edwards that is releasing this?" In fact, The Hill article cited an anonymous "GOP official" and otherwise strongly suggested that Republicans were responsible for pushing the story. From The Hill: Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of government surveillance. [...] Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents. [...] A GOP official said, "Hillary Clinton s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year." The Hill article made no mention of Edwards, and mentioned Obama only while reporting that "Clinton voted against an emergency law that temporarily expanded the government s power to conduct surveillance on American soil without a warrant. ... The Senate s other Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), and Joseph Biden (Del.), also voted against the bill." Beck s program first airs at 7 p.m. ET. At 7:45 p.m. ET, in a post on CNN s Political Ticker blog, CNN Congressional correspondent Dana Bash wrote that "Republicans on Capitol Hill and around the country engaged Tuesday in a coordinated effort to paint Hillary Clinton as hypocritical on the issue of government surveillance, seizing on an allegation in a recent book that Clinton secretly listened to phone conversations of political opponents in 1992." Bash added: "The orchestrated attack is part of an evolving GOP strategy to attack Senator Clinton with dual goals: tarnishing her image and rallying the GOP base." Bash also reported that "Clinton Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told CNN, As Hillary Clinton continues to beat all Republicans in poll after poll this is just politics as usual from Republicans who can t defend this president s failed policies. The story is categorically untrue. " Regarding the sourcing of the claim, Bash wrote: "Gerth told The Hill newspaper that he learned of the incident in 2006 form a former Clinton campaign aide who claimed to be present at the taping. Gerth has not revealed his source s identity." October 17 An October 17 Washington Times article also reported on the allegation. The article stated: "State Republican Party officials across the country yesterday assailed Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for possibly eavesdropping on political opponents cell-phone calls during her husband s tenure as Arkansas governor." The Times also reported that "Clinton campaign spokesman Howard L. Wolfson said the campaign had not responded to the accusation sooner because there were too many accusations in books to answer them all. The story is categorically untrue, said Mr. Wolfson. This is partisan politics as usual from the Republicans who can t defend the failures of this administration. " The Times did not note the allegation is based on an account by a single anonymous source. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported (subscription required) several impediments to the Arkansas Republican Party s effort to have state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel investigate Clinton s purported eavesdropping. According to the Democrat-Gazette, "There were at least two problems with the complaint, however. The law that [Arkansas] GOP Chairman Dennis Milligan said that now-U.S. Sen. Clinton of New York may have violated [during her husband s 1992 presidential campaign] wasn t on the books until 1993. And the complaint was filed 14 years too late." From the October 17 report: The leader of the Arkansas Republican Party asked Attorney General Dustin McDaniel on Tuesday to investigate whether then-first lady Hillary Clinton violated state law during her husband s 1992 presidential campaign by listening to a recording of a phone conversation. There were at least two problems with the complaint, however. The law that GOP Chairman Dennis Milligan said that now-U.S. Sen. Clinton of New York may have violated wasn t on the books until 1993. And the complaint was filed 14 years too late. In a press release Tuesday, Milligan cited one paragraph in the book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by TheNew York Times reporters Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth. "Hillary s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack," the book stated. The complaint offered no further details about the purported conversation or the circumstances of the purported taping or the purported listening. A call to Clinton s presidential campaign press office was not returned Tuesday afternoon. Gabe Holmstrom, a spokesman for McDaniel, said the Republican Party also complained to the wrong office. The attorney general s office lacks the authority to investigate or bring legal proceedings based on allegations of this nature "even if they were true," Holmstrom said. He said any further inquiries on such matters should be directed to the Pulaski County prosecuting attorney. Larry Jegley, the Pulaski County prosecutor, said his office hasn t received any complaint. "If somebody brings us a complaint, we ll handle it in due course just like everything else," Jegley said. "If it s worthy of us spending precious tax dollars, we ll do it." The Republican press release referred to Arkansas Code Annotated 5-60-120, which states, in part: "It is unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, landline, oral, telephonic communication, or wireless communication, and to record or possess a recording of the communication unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception and recording." The statute was enacted in 1993. John DiPippa, dean of the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, said he could find no reference to a prior law replaced by the one cited in the Republican Party press release. "Every statute has a history section that tells where it originates, and this one starts in 1993," DiPippa said. The law is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. Jegley, a Democrat, said the statute of limitations on a Class A misdemeanor is one year. "We re talking about something 15 years ago," he said. "I m not saying that I won t give it a fair look. I am saying that having been around as long as I ve been around - and whether it s a Democrat or Republican doesn t matter to me - this kind of smells." October 18 In an October 18 column for The American Spectator, Spectator founder and editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. referred to the eavesdropping allegation, writing: "This week it was reported in the authoritative Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill, that Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth included some unsavory news about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Her Way, their recent book on her. Hillary, during the 1992 presidential campaign, listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics .... Washington observers appeared shocked. Mein Gott, where have they been all these years? The Clintons have engaged in brute behavior for decades, much of it a matter of record." Tyrrell did not address the sourcing of the allegation or note the Clinton campaign s response that "[t]he story is categorically untrue."

On the October 17 edition of Fox News Studio B with Shepard Smith, during a segment on Fox News host Sean Hannity s interview with Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and his wife, Judith, an on-screen graphic read: "RUDY GIULIANI + 9/11 = THE WHITE HOUSE??" Smith prefaced his discussion with Republican strategist Margaret Hoover and Democratic strategist Malia Lazu by asserting, "Judy Giuliani has been very quiet for the past few months, maybe by campaign design, but last night she and her husband sat down with Sean Hannity -- in obviously very friendly territory -- and one of the first topics: 9-11, the day Rudy Giuliani became a worldwide, household name." After airing a video clip of the interview, Smith said: "Judy Giuliani, speaking out, and on the record with her husband, a place we ve not seen her for a long time -- in the public eye. Why now? Why that venue? And why this topic?" While the segment did not include any additional discussion of Giuliani s response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the same on-screen graphic was shown repeatedly throughout the rest of the segment: As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, here, and here), the media have frequently lauded Giuliani as a 9-11 hero while omitting criticisms of his performance as mayor before, during, and after September 11. Further, at no point during the segment did Smith mention Hoover s reported ties to Giuliani s campaign. According to an April 9 New York magazine article, Hoover joined Giuliani s campaign in September 2006 "to help direct fund-raising operations." The article went on to report: "Hoover, 29, says she s departing to pursue the ever-popular other opportunities, adding that she s still supporting Rudy for president. " From the October 17 edition of Fox News Studio B with Shepard Smith: SMITH: Presidential candidates drag their husbands and wives out on the campaign trail all the time. I don t know about "drag" -- a lot of spouses really like to do it and some spouses are more vocal than others. Judy Giuliani has been very quiet for the past few months, maybe by campaign design, but last night she and her husband sat down with Sean Hannity -- in obviously very friendly territory -- and one of the first topics: 9-11, the day Rudy Giuliani became a worldwide, household name. [begin video clip] JUDITH GIULIANI: Well, September 11th was the most horrific day of my entire life. One of the things that many people don t realize, Sean, is that Rudy was trapped in the basement of 75 Barclay Street for some time that morning. So I could have lost Rudy on that day. [...] JUDITH GIULIANI: We lost loved ones, we lost friends, and Rudy, of course, being Rudy, put me to work, and I was able -- [end video clip] SMITH: Judy Giuliani, speaking out, and on the record, and with her husband, a place we ve not seen her for a long time -- in the public eye. Why now? Why that venue? And why this topic? Margaret Hoover is with us, she s a Republican strategist. Malia Lazu is a Democratic strategist and joins us live now from California. I guess let s start with Republicans. And, Margaret, why now? Why not before? And why Sean Hannity?

On four occasions during MSNBC s October 16 political coverage, anchors uncritically aired Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani s October 14 declaration, "Thou shalt not attack another Republican. So, I m going to try to follow that commandment as much as I can." Giuliani was referring to the "11th Commandment" that was first stated during Ronald Reagan s 1966 California gubernatorial run: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." But at no point did any of the anchors -- Mika Brzezinski, Contessa Brewer, Monica Novotny, and Tamron Hall -- or either of the political analysts featured during the segments -- Pat Buchanan and Joe Watkins -- note that Giuliani has, in fact, repeatedly attacked other Republican candidates. As Media Matters for America noted, on October 5, the Giuliani campaign circulated a press release titled "Romney s Taxachussetts Hypocrisy," attacking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney s record on taxes and spending. Two days earlier, Giuliani had made a "pledge" during an interview not to directly criticize his GOP opponents. In an October 4 article on the interview, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin and Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen wrote that Giuliani "took an unusual pledge" and quoted him saying: "It s my intention not to attack any other Republicans, absolutely. ... The whole focus of my campaign is I m going to run against a Democrat." Giuliani continued his criticism of Romney at the October 9 Republican presidential debate -- sponsored in part by MSNBC -- when he contrasted his economic policies as mayor of New York City with Romney s as governor of Massachusetts, saying, "I led; he lagged." The New York Times reported that the former New York mayor s comments at the debate "reflected a continuing effort by Mr. Giuliani to raise questions about Mr. Romney s candor and character," and quoted Giuliani telling Romney, "You have to be honest with people, and you can t fool all of the people all of the time: the line-item veto is unconstitutional." During the May 15 Republican presidential debate, Giuliani misrepresented a statement by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), claiming that Paul said the United States had "invited the attack" on September 11, 2001. As Media Matters noted, Paul actually said the attacks were a response to U.S. actions in the Middle East and stressed the importance of understanding the motivations of those who want to attack the United States. Further, on October 7, the Associated Press reported that former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci (R) "has emerged as the principal critic of Romney" and "has questioned his gubernatorial successor s economic record on behalf of Rudy Giuliani, whom Cellucci has endorsed in the primary campaign." From the 10 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on October 16: BRZEZINSKI: In fighting for the White House, GOP candidates now find themselves battling for what may be an even more elusive title, the Republican s Republican. Mitt Romney fired the first shot when he tried to slap that label on himself over the weekend. ROMNEY [video clip]: My own view is that, if you will, the Republican wing of the Republican Party, if it s going to follow the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan spoke about, needs to have a social conservative, an economic conservative, and a military conservative. BRZEZINSKI: OK, that s all Romney s rivals needed to dive into the fight and try and claim the title for themselves. [Former Sen.] Fred Thompson [R-TN] was the latest to make his case. [begin video clip] THOMPSON: I am the consistent conservative, who, for eight years on the national scene, fought for lower taxes, a balanced budget, welfare reform, and judges who would interpret the law and not make it up as they go along. I was conservative yesterday, I m a conservative today, and I will be a conservative tomorrow. SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): Former Governor Romney yesterday proclaimed himself as the only real Republican in this race. As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts, being a Republican wasn t much of a priority for him. GIULIANI: Thou shalt not attack another Republican. So, I m going to try to follow that commandment as much as I can. [end video clip] BRZEZINSKI: OK, all this brings us to MSNBC political analyst, consistent conservative Republican Republicans himself, Joe Watkins. Hi, Joe. WATKINS: Hello, Mika. How are you? BRZEZINSKI: You know, on the surface, this sounds a little silly. Smart politics? WATKINS: Very smart politics, of course. BRZEZINSKI: Really? WATKINS: Yeah, well, you ve got to define yourself. Right now, you re in a mode where people are getting to know you, they re getting to know what it is you stand for. And one of the ways you let them know what you stand for is by defining yourself. If you don t define yourself as a candidate, somebody else will define you for you. And usually the way they define you is not the way you want to be defined. So it s a very smart thing for a candidate like Mitt Romney to come out and say, "You know what? I m a fiscal conservative, I m a social conservative, and from a military standpoint, I m also conservative." That tells voters very plainly and clearly where he stands on all three of those areas. BRZEZINSKI: OK, could any of this end up backfiring? WATKINS: Well, I don t think it ends up backfiring. I think the other candidates are very, very smart to use this as a launch pad to begin a discussion. Certainly, I know having once been a candidate, having a couple times been a candidate for public office, that it takes money to publicize yourself. If you don t have money, you ve got to get earned media. You ve got to find ways to pick a fight and to get yourself on the airwaves so that you can also define yourself and maybe beat up the front-runner. That s what the other candidates are doing. They re very smart to do it. It s one way to get yourself in front of the camera and let folks know your campaign is still alive. BRZEZINSKI: All right, just real quickly, in one word, is there anyone in this race who really is a conservative s conservative, Republican s Republican? WATKINS: Well, I think they re all good Republicans; all the camps are good Republicans. I think that -- well, Mitt Romney probably is the one that is most socially conservative and also fiscally and militarily conservative. All three. BRZEZINSKI: OK. All right, Joe, we leave it there. WATKINS: Thanks. BRZEZINSKI: Thank you very much. From the 11 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on October 16: BREWER: Will the real conservative please stand up? In the race for 2008, all the candidates, it seems -- the GOP candidates -- are vying to be called the real conservative, and they re opening fire on each other. [begin video clip] ROMNEY: My own view is that, if will you, the Republican wing of the Republican Party, if it s going to follow the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan spoke about, needs to have a social conservative, an economic conservative, and a military conservative. McCAIN: Former Governor Romney yesterday proclaimed himself as the only real Republican in this race. As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts, being a Republican wasn t much of a priority for him. THOMPSON: I am the consistent conservative, who, for eight years on the national scene, fought for lower taxes, a balanced budget, welfare reform, and judges who would interpret the law and not make it up as they go along. I was conservative yesterday, I m a conservative today, and I will be a conservative tomorrow. GIULIANI: Thou shalt not attack another Republican. So, I m going to try to follow that commandment as much as I can. From the 12 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on October 16: NOVOTNY: Republican presidential candidates are apparently giving the Democrats a break. Instead, at least for now, they re attacking one another. This all started a few days ago when Mitt Romney claimed to have the real Republican credentials. ROMNEY [video clip]: My own view is that, if will you, the Republican wing of the Republican Party, if it s going to follow the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan spoke about, needs to have a social conservative, an economic conservative, and a military conservative. NOVOTNY: Not surprisingly, Romney s rivals disagree, and now they re fighting back. McCAIN [video clip]: Former governor Romney yesterday proclaimed himself as the only real Republican in this race. As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts, being a Republican wasn t much of a priority for him. [...] NOVOTNY: Let s listen to Giuliani. He s been responding to the idea of the Republicans going after one another, and he had this sound bite. Let s hear that. GIULIANI [video clip]: I think Ronald Reagan is kind of our guide to a large extent because he was the most successful Republican in a long time. He used to have an 11th Commandment. It was thou shalt not attack another Republican. So I m going to try to follow that commandment as much as I can. NOVOTNY: Joe, does he have a point? WATKINS: He has a very good point, except if you re not first place in the sweepstakes to be the Republican nominee, you ve got to do something to change the order. And so Giuliani is doing very well in the national polls, he s atop the national polls in the Republican sweepstakes, and in the state polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney is ahead. So the others who aren t leading right now have to attack in order to change that dynamic, and they re doing just that. But in a perfect world, Republicans wouldn t attack Republicans. Pat Buchanan has a great point, which is that once the Republican nominee is chosen, they ll all get behind that person to defeat Hillary Clinton in the November election. [...] BUCHANAN: Let me say on that 11th Commandment, you know, we -- in the Nixon days, we obeyed that 11th Commandment pretty well, thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. Our problem, Monica, was with the first 10. From the 1 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on October 16: HALL: In the race for 2008, the Republican candidates are running to be the real conservative and opening fire now on each other. [begin video clip] ROMNEY: My own view is that, if will you, the Republican wing of the Republican Party, if it s going to follow the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan spoke about, needs to have a social conservative, an economic conservative, and a military conservative. McCAIN: Former governor Romney yesterday proclaimed himself as the only real Republican in this race. As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts, being a Republican wasn t much of a priority for him. THOMPSON: I am the consistent conservative, who, for eight years on the national scene, fought for lower taxes, a balanced budget, welfare reform, and judges who would interpret the law and not make it up as they go along. I was conservative yesterday, I m a conservative today, and I will be a conservative tomorrow. GIULIANI: Thou shalt not attack another Republican. So, I m going to try to follow that commandment as much as I can. [end video clip] HALL: Let s bring in MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan and former presidential candidate, as well as Joe Watkins, a Republican strategist and MSNBC analyst. Thank you, gentlemen, for making time. BUCHANAN: Thank you, Tamron. WATKINS: Thank you. HALL: So I just got this in from our producer, Angie Dorr [ph], comments from Rudy Giuliani. He s continuing to defend himself as the real Republican in this race, Pat. He says, "I gave my blood for the Republican Party in New York," and he went on to say that he was the first Republican mayor of New York and the first to stay a Republican in 50 years.

In an October 12 article on the possible indictment of former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik on charges relating to Interstate Industrial Corp., a company suspected of having ties to organized crime, Newsday uncritically reported the statement by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) that "I take the responsibility that we should have known about them," suggesting that he had not been aware of Kerik s relationship with the company. Similarly, MSNBC s Hardball and Fox News Special Report uncritically aired Giuliani s quote, "I ve already said I should have checked his background more carefully." The New York Daily News, which disclosed the possible Kerik indictment in an October 12 article, reported that federal prosecutors may soon indict Kerik on charges that "will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud and obstruction of justice." In contrast with news outlets that uncritically reported Giuliani s statements claiming or suggesting a lack of knowledge about Kerik s problems, in an October 13 article, The New York Times reported, "It remains unclear how much Mr. Giuliani knew about the problems of Mr. Kerik before making him police commissioner," later stating, "Testifying under oath in April 2006, Mr. Giuliani told a grand jury that the former city commissioner of investigation remembered briefing him on some aspects of Mr. Kerik s relationship to the company in question before he named Mr. Kerik police commissioner." The Times first reported on Giuliani s 2006 testimony regarding Kerik in a March 30 article, headlined "Giuliani Testified He Was Briefed on Kerik in 00": Rudolph W. Giuliani told a grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Kerik s relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime before Mr. Kerik s appointment as New York City police commissioner, according to court records. Mr. Giuliani, testifying last year under oath before a Bronx grand jury investigating Mr. Kerik, said he had no memory of the briefing, but he did not dispute that it had taken place, according to a transcript of his testimony. Mr. Giuliani s testimony amounts to a significantly new version of what information was probably before him in the summer of 2000 as he was debating Mr. Kerik s appointment as the city s top law enforcement officer. Mr. Giuliani had previously said that he had never been told of Mr. Kerik s entanglement with the company before promoting him to the police job or later supporting his failed bid to be the nation s homeland security secretary. [...] Mr. Kerik pleaded guilty last summer to improperly allowing the company, Interstate Industrial Corporation, or its subsidiaries, to do $165,000 worth of free renovations on his Bronx apartment in late 1999 and 2000. The company has denied paying for the work, and has disputed any association with organized crime. But the two brothers who run it have been indicted in the Bronx on charges they lied under oath about their dealings with Mr. Kerik. There is no evidence that Mr. Giuliani knew about the apartment renovation before promoting Mr. Kerik to police commissioner. The next day, the Times quoted Giuliani saying of Kerik: "I think I should have done a better job of investigating him, vetting him, however you want to describe that. ... It s my responsibility, and I ve learned from it." In the October 13 article, the Times again noted Giuliani s earlier testimony that he does not dispute having been briefed on some aspects of Kerik s relationship with Interstate Industrial: After praising Mr. Kerik s performance as commissioner, Mr. Giuliani said: "On the other side of this, there were these problems. We should have known about them. We should have dealt with them. We didn t. It s my mistake." It remains unclear how much Mr. Giuliani knew about the problems of Mr. Kerik before making him police commissioner. Testifying under oath in April 2006, Mr. Giuliani told a grand jury that the former city commissioner of investigation remembered briefing him on some aspects of Mr. Kerik s relationship to the company in question before he named Mr. Kerik police commissioner. Mr. Giuliani testified that he had no memory of the briefing, but did not dispute that it had taken place. However, unlike the Times article, Newsday, Hardball host Chris Matthews, and Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron all quoted Giuliani s October 12 statement regarding Kerik without noting reports of his 2006 testimony. From the October 12 Newsday article: Giuliani argues that overall, the hundreds of people he appointed produced more successes than failures. And he hopes to convince voters that he d do an even better job of picking people based on his mistakes with Kerik. As for Kerik s problems, Giuliani said, "I take the responsibility that we should have known about them." From the October 12 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: Speaking of Rudy, the New York Daily News reports today that federal prosecutors are expected to file charges next month against former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik. The briefly nominated candidate for Homeland Security chief, according to the newspaper, says the charges will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud, and obstruction of justice. Kerik s lawyer told WNBC in New York that prosecutors told him no charging decisions have been made yet. Here s the former New York mayor s reaction -- quote -- "I ve already said I should have checked his background more carefully. I didn t. I ve learned a lesson from it. I m going to check more carefully in the future" -- close quote. From the October 12 edition of Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume: BRET BAIER (guest host): So, Carl, what s up with the Republicans today? What s new? CARL CAMERON (chief political correspondent): Well, they re certainly enjoying watching the Democrats beat each other up, but for Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, it s been a very busy week. And today, the Giuliani campaign woke up to a headline in the New York Daily News suggesting that Mr. Giuliani s former police commissioner, when he was mayor of New York, is facing the possibility of a federal indictment for corruption allegations. Mr. Kerik has caused some level of embarrassment for Rudy Giuliani over the years and Giuliani has apologized for having put him in that position in the past. Here s a sampling of Giuliani today on the subject. GIULIANI [video clip]: I ve already said that I made a mistake, that I should have checked his background more carefully. I didn t. I ve learned a lesson from it. I m going to check more carefully in the future. CAMERON: Now, the New York Daily News offered up an article that suggested that Kerik could be facing yet another indictment, but it was a largely unsubstantiated and no direct sourcing in it. It is an unconfirmed report. However, this is clearly a story that s going to come back again and again for Rudy Giuliani.

On the October 16 edition of MSNBC s Tucker, discussing third-quarter fundraising totals for the 2008 presidential candidates with The Hill associate editor A.B Stoddard and Politico staff writer Josephine Hearn, host Tucker Carlson asserted: "[H]ere s the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions -- Democrats win rich people." He continued: "Over 100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that out. Rich people vote liberal. I don t know what that s all about." However, according to CNN exit polls from the 2006 congressional elections, the 2004 presidential election, the 2004 congressional elections, and the 2000 presidential election, voters with annual incomes of more than $100,000 are more likely to vote for Republican, not Democratic, candidates. According to CNN exit polls from the 2006 congressional elections, 47 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate for the House, while 52 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate for the House. Additionally, 45 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate, while 53 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate. According to CNN exit polls from the 2004 presidential election, 41 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more voted for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 58 percent of such voters cast their ballots for Republican candidate George W. Bush. Additionally, 35 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more voted for Kerry, while 63 percent of such voters supported Bush. According to CNN exit polls from the 2004 congressional elections, 42 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives, while 57 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate for the House. Additionally, 36 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate while 62 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate. According to CNN exit polls from the 2000 presidential election, 43 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more voted for Democratic candidate Al Gore, while 54 percent of such voters supported Bush. According to CNN s website, "Due to problems at Voter News Service, exit polls were not available for the 2002 [congressional] election." From the October 16 edition of MSNBC s Tucker: CARLSON: Third-quarter fundraising totals are in. The Democrats are crushing Republicans. They really are -- outraising the GOP by 3-to-1. Take a close look at the numbers, and you will see why. Wall Street and big business are giving to Democrats, big time. Are they betting on the winner? Of course they are. It s not out of love. An obvious rhetorical question, but in any case, we welcome back to answer it associate editor of The Hill A.B. Stoddard and the Politico s Josephine Hearn. OK. Because actually, the numbers are unbelievable. And I could bore viewers all day with breakdowns. But here s just one: Goldman Sachs, 71 percent of money from Goldman to Democrats. J.P. Morgan, 68 percent to Democrats. I mean, the obvious explanation is they didn t get to be big business by being stupid. And they perceive Democrats are going to win. Is there another explanation, or is that it? STODDARD: It s -- I think it s two reasons. I think there s the perception that the Democrats will hold power for the time being, and, on the other hand, also, they re punishing Republicans because they think that if you look back at the last 12 years and the last seven, that they weren t minding the store. CARLSON: Yeah. So, you think they re legitimate complaints. It s not just hedging against the future. STODDARD: No, there are. There are economic conservatives who will never vote for a Democrat because they associate the party still with big, unwieldy social programs and -- but you look at lot of moder-- sort of centrist Republicans, right-leaning independents, they re going to break away. They re going to lean the other way. CARLSON: OK, but here s the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions -- Democrats win rich people. Over 100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that out. Rich people vote liberal. I don t know what that s all about. Drug companies -- this is the most amazing fact of all -- Democrats spend their entire waking hours, Josie, is this correct, beating up the big drug companies. HEARN: Right, right. CARLSON: Fifty percent of money from the big drug companies going to Democrats. Is this masochism? HEARN: Well, I mean, I think overall, business was really upset with the Republicans over the past 12 years. I mean, like, if you re a businessperson, especially a successful one, and you re looking at the sort of, you know, poor management we saw with Katrina, we saw with Iraq, the lack of fiscal responsibility, the lack of accountability, I mean, I think you re pretty disappointed with the Republicans.

On the October 16 edition of MSNBC s Tucker, host Tucker Carlson and guests A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, and Politico staff writer Josephine Hearn repeated an anonymously sourced allegation that during Bill Clinton s 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics." During the segment, Carlson and his guests did not note that the sole basis for the claim is a single unnamed source describing events that allegedly had occurred 14 years earlier. The segment also featured a series of false and baseless claims, including Carlson s attribution of the controversy to a "new book" (in fact, the book is months old) and Hearn s claim that the Clinton campaign "apparently ... never challenged anything in the book at all" (in fact, the campaign has challenged this claim and at least one other). Minutes earlier, on the October 16 edition of Fox News Special Report, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that Sen. Clinton s presidential campaign "flatly denied" the allegation and quoted Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson saying, "This story is categorically untrue." The claim about Hillary Clinton s purported eavesdropping is drawn from Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions" and further describe the tape as having been "obtained under questionable circumstances." According to the endnotes of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta s only source for this claim is a 2006 "[a]uthor interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing." From Her Way, Pages 93-94: Hillary s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries;10 she vetted senior campaign aides;11 and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.12 A lot had changed since the moment eighteen years earlier when Hillary had been aghast at the suggestion that the Clinton campaign use underhanded means to garner votes in rural Arkansas. Yet again, Bill Clinton s chances were being jeopardized by rumors of his womanizing. And yet again, it was up to Hillary to minimize the threat -- and if that meant listening to a tape that had been obtained under questionable circumstances, then she would just deal with it. Associated Endnotes: 10. Numerous 1992 campaign memoranda addressed to Hillary Rodham Clinton. 11. David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace (New York: Scribner, 2001), 20. 12. Author interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing in 2006. From the October 16 edition of MSNBC s Tucker: CARLSON: Hillary Clinton says she s against warrantless wiretapping, so why did she do it herself, reportedly listening in on private conversations between her political opponents? Details in a minute. [...] CARLSON: The conventional wisdom right now says Hillary Clinton is solidifying her front-runner status on the Democratic side, but her smooth ride to the nomination could get bumpy if rumors of scandal resurface -- and what do you know? They have. A new book out by a pair of Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporters makes a startling claim. Back in 1992, it says, Hillary Clinton allegedly eavesdropped on the phone calls of her husband s political opponents. Some Republicans say that smacks of hypocrisy especially since Senator Clinton criticizes the warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists -- trouble for Hillary Clinton? Well, now, we welcome associate editor of The Hill, A.B. Stoddard, and the Politico s Josephine Hearn. This is an amazing story. At first, I kind of wrote this off -- it s 1992, who cares? Take look at this. This is from the book -- I m ashamed to say I ve not read, I m gonna read -- by Don Van Natta and Jeff Gerth, both formerly of The New York Times. And it says this -- let s just put a graphic up on the screen. This is an excerpt from the book: "[Hillary] listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions." That s pretty -- I mean, if that s true, that s not like tape-recording a phone call, which I think you can explain away if you re on the phone call, you know. Even if it s illegal, I think it s not an evil thing to do. But tape-recording people s cell phone calls with a police scanner? HEARN: Right. And it looks like it is illegal and was illegal then, in 92. But on the other hand, she was just listening to a recording, right? CARLSON: Right. HEARN: She wasn t actually -- it was not like she was there with the equipment, you know, as the phone call was happening. CARLSON: Right. No, that s fair. HEARN: She just listened to a recording. So, you know, maybe -- we don t know the circumstances of it. Maybe there was -- you know, everybody was listening to it, and then, you know, would you incriminate the intern who was also sitting there listening to it at the same time. CARLSON: Oh, I m not suggesting that charges ought to be brought against her. I think you ought to pull -- no, I m not. And I m not saying "Oh, it s" -- huffing about its illegality. I m just saying, having covered a lot of campaigns, some of them sort of intimately, I ve never heard of anything like that. And I m not just being mean to Hillary Clinton. HEARN: Never heard of illegal activity? CARLSON: Oh, I ve heard of a lot of illegal activity. STODDARD: Of monitoring the frequencies of cell phones? CARLSON: I ve heard of buying votes, I ve heard -- and I ve seen a lot of things that are sketchy, if not outright wrong. I ve never heard of anybody taping phone calls on a scanner, ever, have you? HEARN: I haven t, no. CARLSON: Have you? STODDARD: No. I think that it s very tech savvy, and it definitely was illegal. But I think that again, Jose is right. Are you going to blame Hillary Clinton for listening or are you going to get the guy who did the recording for the Clinton camp? I think anyone, any one of her rivals, given the opportunity in this very same situation, would listen if offered a recording like this -- CARLSON: Oh, I would listen. STODDARD: -- to know what was coming. And any wife who has -- whose husband -- CARLSON: Yes, I think that s fair. STODDARD: -- runs around is probably going to do the same. CARLSON: I would listen, too. Absolutely. And I m not faulting her for listening. I m faulting the campaign and the Clinton operation and the culture around the Clintons for being so hardball. So -- it s the same impulse that led them to tell me personally when the Monica thing broke that Monica was like a whore and a stalker, which is what they told me. You know what I mean? It s the -- there s a meanness and a toughness that s -- it s too much. HEARN: Why would you run a campaign -- STODDARD: You re leaving nothing to chance. HEARN: -- where somebody would feel it was OK to do this? CARLSON: Right. HEARN: You know, why would there -- yeah, I think it s a big deal if somebody decides to investigate it. I mean, it s 15 years old. CARLSON: Yeah. HEARN: I think, lacking an investigation, I don t know, it seems pretty tenuous right now. CARLSON: Well, the Clinton people seem to think that. They don t appear worried about it, because here s what Clinton s press secretary said. Asked for comment, he said -- I m quoting now -- "We don t comment on books that are utter and complete failures." In other words, we only comment on John Grisham novels. That s the only thing we re going to talk about. What does its sales numbers have to do with the truth or falseness of the allegations? HEARN: Nothing at all, but, I mean, if you re him, you don t want to admit anything on this. They never -- apparently they never challenged anything in the book at all. CARLSON: Right. That s what the author says. STODDARD: And they ve known about it, obviously, since before -- probably before the book was published. CARLSON: Well, just to be clear, these are not two guys from The American Spectator. These are two -- in at least one case, I think, a pretty well-established, at least, former liberal. I mean, they re not screaming right-wingers, they re just -- they re reporters. STODDARD: And we re all guilty of not reading the book right when it came out and discovering this for ourselves. CARLSON: I m embarrassed, I -- STODDARD: Look at Alex [ph]. CARLSON: You know what? I didn t read it for the same reasons a lot of people didn t. I just feel like, what could you tell me new about Hillary Clinton? I spent the entire 90s, you know, writing about this stuff, but I guess there is a lot new. But I -- people -- my strong sense about Hillary Clinton is, people don t want to know. They don t want to know. They don t care. STODDARD: Well, the people who support her and have decided to overcome their discomfort and support her -- and there are a lot of them, and that number s growing -- probably don t want to hear about it. It ll be interesting to see what she says about it if she s pressed. But for Republicans, they have to work with what they have, and they are interested in hearing about this. CARLSON: And they don t have squat. They don t have squat. I mean, if this were about -- STODDARD: But they ll take what they can get. CARLSON: If this were a story about Rudy Giuliani from 1992, it would lead every show on MSNBC today. There s just no question it would. Is that -- I mean, you know it would. Rudy Giuliani using a police scanner to listen to people s cell phone calls? Holy smokes, man. STODDARD: But, no, no. But it s not clear that she -- it was her husband s campaign. CARLSON: Her campaign. If it was Bernie Kerik working on behalf of Rudy Giuliani -- I m not just claiming media bias, it s more complicated than that, but do you -- would that not be a story? STODDARD: It might be true. It might be true. CARLSON: Could he get away with saying -- STODDARD: Well, anything about Bernie Kerik is a story these days. I mean, to be fair. CARLSON: All right, we re going to be back. You thought that was bad news for Republicans, wait till you hear this. Wall Street has always backed them, you knew that, forever. Well, not anymore. We ll tell you what happened in a minute. From the October 16 edition of Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume: ANGLE: There is no allegation Senator Clinton ordered the wiretapping, only that she knowingly listened to it. GERTH [audio clip]: The person who told us about this was present at the playing of the tape recording. ANGLE: A Clinton spokesman had earlier dismissed the account of the eavesdropping, saying they wouldn t comment on a failed book, but stopped short of denying it. Today, however, the Clinton campaign decided to go further and flatly denied the account. Communications director Howard Wolfson said, "This story is categorically untrue."

On the October 15 edition of MSNBC s Tucker, discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) presidential campaign with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and Cliff May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, host Tucker Carlson said: "Gene, this is an amazing statistic: 94 percent of women say they d be more likely to vote if a woman were on the ballot. I think of all the times I voted for people just because they re male. You know? The ballot comes up, and I m like, Wow. He s a dude. I think I ll vote for him. We ve got similar genitalia. I m -- he s getting my vote. " After asserting that "the Clinton campaign says: Hillary isn t running as a woman, " Carlson stated: "Well, that s actually completely false, considering the Hillary campaign -- and I get their emails -- relentlessly pushes the glass ceiling argument. You should vote for her because she s a woman. They say that all the time." May responded: "At least call her a Vaginal-American." Carlson replied: "Is that the new phrase? Boy, that s nasty. I don t think I can say that." Robinson interjected, "No, you don t say that," to which Carlson responded: "I shouldn t say that? I m not going attempt it. No, no." Carlson also asked: "Do you think that people who are voting on the basis of gender solidarity ought to be allowed to vote in a perfect world? Of course they shouldn t be allowed to vote on those grounds. That s like -- that s moronic. I m sorry. I know I m going to get bounced off the air for saying it, but that s true." From the October 15 edition of MSNBC s Tucker: CLINTON [video clip]: All these women in their 90s come to my events. And they come and they wait. Sometimes they re in walkers. Sometimes they re in wheelchairs, like a daughter or granddaughter bring them. And then when I m going around shaking hands, they ll say something like, "I m 95 years old and I was born before women could vote, and I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House." CARLSON: That was Hillary Clinton talking to women, the women who host ABC s The View and the millions of American women, presumably, who watch that show. According to polls, Mrs. Clinton has widespread appeal to female voters, and if you talk to her campaign, it s women who are going to carry her to the nomination and eventually the White House. A memo from chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn says that 94 percent of women under the age of 35 said they are more likely to vote next November if a woman, Hillary, is on the ballot. Can that be? And how much would it matter were it true? Here to tell us, The Washington Post s Eugene Robinson and the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Cliff May. Gene, this is an amazing statistic: 94 percent of women say they d be more likely to vote if a woman were on the ballot. I think of all the times I voted for people just because they re male. You know? The ballot comes up, and I m like, "Wow. He s a dude. I think I ll vote for him. We ve got similar genitalia. I m -- he s getting my vote." ROBINSON: Look, you didn t have a choice all those times you were voting, right? You didn t have a choice of genitalia to vote for. CARLSON: No, but when I do, I just -- I always vote the man. Because, I don t know -- come on. ROBINSON: It s a -- when firsts happen, they are significant. They say something about the society and how far it s come and where it is. And, you know, not just that figure in that poll, but if you look at all the polls, really, that show her amazing strength among women. And you look at a state like South Carolina, my home state, where both in my paper, the Post, and in The New York Times, over the weekend there were stories about black women and how, in a sense, conflicted -- CARLSON: That s an interesting [unintelligible]. ROBINSON: -- they feel about Obama versus Hillary Clinton. Part of that -- not all of that, certainly, but part of it is -- you know, he s African-American. She s a woman. CARLSON: Well, part of it is loyalty to the Clintons as -- specifically the Clintons, don t you think? It s not just the female. ROBINSON: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I think -- [crosstalk] MAY: Because if gender solidarity trumps all other interests, I think that s kind of sad. I don t think racial or religious solidarity should trump all interests, either. CARLSON: Do you think that people who are voting on the basis of gender solidarity ought to be allowed to vote in a perfect world? Of course they shouldn t be allowed to vote on those grounds. That s like -- that s moronic. I m sorry. I know I m going to get bounced off the air for saying it, but that s true. ROBINSON: That doesn t trump all other characteristics. There are a lot of women who are going to vote for Republicans in November because they re conservative. CARLSON: I m not saying women shouldn t vote for Hillary at all. I m merely saying the obvious: that you shouldn t vote for her because she s a woman. Here s what the Clinton campaign says: "Hillary isn t running as a woman. As Hillary says, she s not running as a woman candidate. The only reason to vote for her is that you believe she s the most qualified to be president." Well, that s actually completely false, considering the Hillary campaign -- and I get their emails -- relentlessly pushes the glass ceiling argument. "You should vote for her because she s a woman." They say that all the time. She just said that on The View. I mean, that s like their rationale. MAY: At least call her a Vaginal-American, as opposed to -- CARLSON: Is that the new phrase? MAY: I think that is, yeah. CARLSON: Boy, that s nasty. I don t think I can say that. ROBINSON: No, you don t say that. CARLSON: I shouldn t say that? I m not going attempt it. No, no. [crosstalk] ROBINSON: Look, it s kind of working, number one. CARLSON: It s definitely working. It s definitely working. ROBINSON: So this is effective. And number two -- CARLSON: So you don t think it s a little embarrassing, though? ROBINSON: No, it s not embarrassing. There are a lot of -- CARLSON: I talked to two women today who I love and admire, who -- I work in their proximity, and they both said, "I m embarrassed that women would vote just on the basis of her gender or that that would influence their vote." ROBINSON: It wouldn t vote -- you know, we re talking about Democrats -- CARLSON: But how will she be a different president because she s a woman? ROBINSON: -- first of all, who basically agree with her. Hmm? CARLSON: I mean, here s what I don t understand. We need a woman. How is she going to be a different president because she s a woman? I just don t get that. ROBINSON: I don t think she will be. But I think it will be significant if a woman is elected president of the United States, as it would be significant if an African-American were elected president of the United States. It s -- you know, for some people, it was significant, you know, when a Southerner is elected as opposed to a Northerner, when the first Catholic was elected president of the United States. It says something about the country and inclusiveness. MAY: Did Maggie Thatcher have more women voting for her than men? I wonder. ROBINSON: You know, I don t know the figure. CARLSON: I suspect she had more men voting for her than women. MAY: I suspect that s true. CARLSON: She ran and governed as a man, I think, was the idea. ROBINSON: Most of her elections, she probably -- she won pretty big, most of her elections. She probably did have [unintelligible]. MAY: She ran and governed based on her views and her determination and her mettle, and I think that s the way it s supposed to be. ROBINSON: I once talked to Margaret Thatcher about John Major, and she thought he was kind of a wuss. She leaned close and said, "If only he were a man." [laughter] CARLSON: She was a tougher dude than he ever was, no doubt about it. Here s an interesting poll -- this is from your paper, Mr. Robinson, Washington Post/ABC News poll. Republicans are asked who best reflects the core values of their party. Guess who wins, Cliff.

While discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) presidential campaign during the October 15 edition of Fox News Hannity re not going to find out what Hillary Clinton believes. She s not doing any kind of interviews." In fact, in the past month, Clinton has given interviews to newspapers, television shows, and radio programs. For instance, on October 15 -- the same day as Santorum s appearance on Hannity Face the Nation, NBC s Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, ABC s This Week, and CNN s Late Edition) all aired separate interviews with Clinton. Neither co-host Sean Hannity nor co-host Alan Colmes challenged Santorum s false assertion. From the October 15 edition of Fox News Hannity s changing here on very specific issues that she s making, you know, a month ago, two weeks ago, not on a significant, heart-wrenching, soul-searching issue like abortion, right? SANTORUM: No, this is what you re going to expect to see from Hillary from here on out. She s playing to try to do two things. She s sort of moving from running a primary campaign to running a general election campaign, and she s finding herself now where she thinks she s won the nomination, and so she s trying to play both sides. You re not going to find out what Hillary Clinton believes. She s not doing any kind of interviews. She has no access to the press when they travel with her. She s going to be very, very scripted. She s going to try to keep everybody happy, both in the primary and for the general. This is all about politics. She does not want you to know what she really thinks. She s not going to give you access to dig to what she really thinks -- COLMES: Hey -- SANTORUM: She s trying to just keep everybody happy until she gets to the last few months of the campaign. COLMES: Hey, Rick, this is going to surprise you. I don t always agree with Hillary Clinton. In fact, I m very upset that she voted to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. I think that moves us a step closer to war, so I object to her position on that. However, in this case, I do not see it as an exact flip-flop. She was -- in the first instance, the question was, would you engage directly with leaders of other countries? She said no. Here she says, there would be negotiations with Iran. It wouldn t necessarily be between her and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, but that there would communication between the countries. They re not exactly the same thing. SANTORUM: Well, what she did was criticize Barack Obama for saying that he would negotiate without conditions with Iran - COLMES: Directly, himself. SANTORUM: -- directly. Well, and saying that she would negotiate without conditions with Iran generally, that is a very nuanced -- if that s not a flip-flop, that s about as nuanced as it gets off the cuff in New Hampshire. I just don t buy it. I think what it is, is she s trying to appeal to both audiences. She s trying to play it down the middle. And, you know, when you re in a campaign where everybody s watching every word you re saying, you can t do that and get away with it. COLMES: Well, I do see a difference between her directly engaging with the leader of other countries and having negotiations between countries. But, [Democratic strategist] Rich Masters, you know, Sean is correct. You cannot, they cannot paint her as a flip- flopper if Rudy Giuliani -- because he knew I was going to say this -- or Mitt Romney will be the nominee when they have flip-flopped on every key -- in fact, I m going to let him do my stuff from now on -- on every single key issue, which are serious, important, mainstream issues. They flip-flopped on everything.

On the October 14 edition of ABC s This Week, during a discussion of the Republican presidential primary field, Washington Post columnist George F. Will said of candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney: "What they [Republican primary voters] have learned about Giuliani is that he doesn t flip-flop. ... [H]e s taken exactly the un-Romney approach to his problem, which was to say, Look, this is me. Take it or leave it. " ABC News correspondent Sam Donaldson then asked, "Did you hear what he said to the NRA?" while National Public Radio senior news analyst and ABC News political commentator Cokie Roberts added, "[H]e equivocated on guns. He equivocated on abortion." Host George Stephanopoulos later said, "[H]is basic point is, I m not going to change my principles, but I m not going to do anything to harm you. " Media Matters for America has documented numerous inconsistencies in Giuliani s positions on both gun control and abortion. As Media Matters documented, as mayor of New York City, Giuliani supported federal gun control laws that affected all 50 states, including the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and the national assault weapons ban signed by President Clinton in 1994, which has since expired. On the January 27, 1994, edition of CBS This Morning, when asked if he endorsed the proposed ban, Giuliani responded: "Doing away with assault weapons? Absolutely." However, earlier this year, Giuliani suggested on his campaign website that he does not support federal gun control laws and that guns should instead be regulated on a state-by-state basis. On June 26, the issues section of his website (accessed through the Internet Archive) read: Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana. The gun control section of Giuliani s website has since been revised. As of October 14, the issues section of his website reads: Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution. To deal with a city where crime was out of control, Mayor Giuliani worked to get guns out of the hands of criminals -- resulting in a 66% drop in the murder rate and 72% reduction in criminal related shootings. The best way to deal with gun crime is to prosecute the criminals and enforce the laws already on the books. Rudy Giuliani will make sure that if someone commits a crime with a gun, they will go to prison for the mandatory sentence. To watch Rudy s comments on every citizen s Constitutional right to bear arms, please click here. Additionally, in a September 22 article on Giuliani s speech at the National Rifle Association s "Celebration of American Values Conference," the Los Angeles Times reported that "[i]n Giuliani s clearest break from his mayoral record, he renounced the lawsuit that he ordered the city to file against gun makers in 2000." The article added: "I think that lawsuit has gone in a direction that I probably don t agree with at this point," Giuliani told several hundred gun-rights supporters at the conference. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, cast a new light on 2nd Amendment rights, he said, and "maybe it highlights the necessity for them more." Giuliani described the suit as part of his aggressive approach to crime. "Some people call it excessive," Giuliani said. "I thought it was intense. But the reality is I was trying to achieve a result, which is to reduce crime in New York. That is not necessarily what is needed now. It certainly isn t the interpretation that I think is the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment." Further, as Media Matters has documented, Giuliani has vacillated on the abortion issue at various points in his career as a public official, and this year alone, he has wavered on the desirability of the Supreme Court s overturning Roe v. Wade. On the February 5 edition of Fox News Hannity s right to choose," but then encouraged "conservatives" to find similarities in "the way we think," specifically on "the appointment of judges." When asked about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who has stated that he would overrule Roe, Giuliani replied that he is "somebody I consider to be a really great judge. ... I do think you have sort of a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice, and I think a strict constructionist would be probably the way I d describe it." Additionally, during a May 3 Republican presidential debate, Giuliani said that "[i]t would be OK to repeal" Roe, but that "[i]t would be also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent." On the May 10 edition of National Public Radio s All Things Considered, introducing a report about Giuliani s then-upcoming speech at Houston Baptist University by national political correspondent Mara Liasson, co-host Robert Siegel stated: "Giuliani is the only one of the Republican presidential candidates who supports abortion rights. Recently, his answers to questions about abortion, such as in last week s debate, have caused some confusion." Liasson reported that Giuliani would be making an effort to clarify his position, if not change the topic all together." Liasson then reported: "Tomorrow, Giuliani will speak at Houston Baptist University, where, his aides say, he will reiterate his support for abortion rights, and say that, although there are disagreements about the issue, all sides should respect each other." Additionally, at the beginning of his 1989 mayoral campaign, Giuliani was a professed opponent of abortion rights, as well as of Roe. By the end of that campaign, however, Giuliani had reportedly shifted his position to one favoring abortion rights, saying, according to the Associated Press, that "he supports abortion rights, and would not seek to reduce funds or services, even though he remains personally opposed." As blogger Greg Sargent noted, in a June 18, 1993, article, The New York Times reported that Giuliani campaign leaflets "said that he opposes restrictions to Federal Medicaid financing for abortions and opposes the Hyde Amendment, which is intended to deny support for that financing." During an April 4 CNN interview, in response to a video from a November 3, 1989, campaign event in which he called for public funding for abortion -- "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources" -- Giuliani suggested that he holds the same position today, asserting that he would support "public funding" if its denial "would deprive someone of a constitutional right" to an abortion. However, his director of policy, spokesperson, and campaign aides said -- before the April 4 interview -- that Giuliani s position is that he would not change current law on abortion funding, which prohibits federal funding for abortion except in cases of incest, rape, or life endangerment. From the October 14 edition of ABC s This Week with George Stephanopoulos: ROBERTS: We ve been having this conversation. The Republicans have a real problem. But Romney did invite all kinds of attacks, and he s gotten them now from Giuliani -- and Giuliani remains the surprise. We have to say that. I mean, the fact that he is still running so well among Republicans, even after they ve gotten to know him better, and know some of his positions and his oddities, he s -- DONALDSON: I would argue with you but I got to take a cell phone call from my wife, Jan. "Hi, honey. Say hello to George Stephanopoulos." WILL: What they have learned about Giuliani is that he doesn t flip-flop. That it s -- he s taken exactly the un-Romney approach to his problem, which was to say, "Look, this is me. Take it or leave it." ROBERTS: Well, to some degree. To some degree, he did equivocate on -- DONALDSON: Did you hear what he said to the NRA? ROBERTS: Yeah, he equivocated on guns. He equivocated on abortion. DONALDSON: Sure, he didn t completely renounce his gun control past, but boy, he wanted -- he tried to make it sound like that was kind of in the past, had nothing to do with -- ROBERTS: Had to do with New York. DONALDSON: -- anything except New York City, and nationally, you can trust him on the Second Amendment. STEPHANOPOULOS: No, but -- yeah, his basic point is, "I m not going to change my principles, but I m not going to do anything to harm you."

On the October 11 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer introduced a segment on Politico senior political writer David Paul Kuhn s book The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma (Palgrave MacMillan, October 2007) by saying to correspondent Carol Costello, "The book tells us exactly why white men are leaving the Democratic Party. What s going on?" Costello replied: "Well, I don t know what either political party is calling the white male this time around, but the Democrats appear to be losing them." Later, Costello stated that white men are "no longer voting the Democratic way," and asked, "[W]hat s a [Bruce] Springsteen-loving white man to do? Recent history says, Vote Republican. " However -- as Costello herself noted at the conclusion of the segment -- Democrats "picked up 6 percent more white men" in the 2006 midterm election: In 2004, 38 percent of white men voted for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives, while 44 percent voted for Democratic House candidates in 2006. Costello commented that "one election does not a trend make." And Springsteen himself campaigned for 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a fact not mentioned in Costello s report. Blitzer had teased the segment by asking, "And have white men abandoned the Democratic Party? Or is it the other way around?" Costello reported, "Conservatives fought back, painting the Democratic Party as so into diversity, it can t see the color white" and apparently to illustrate the point, played a video clip of right-wing pundit Ann Coulter highlighting Sen. Barack Obama s middle name -- Hussein. Coulter was shown saying: "I think Democrats have hit upon the perfect candidate, Barack Obama, or as I call him, B. Hussein Obama. B. Hussein Obama is half white, half black ... so there s somebody for every Democrat to vote for." Blitzer also uncritically reported that Kuhn s book "claims Democrats are neglecting [white men], and it could cost their party the election." In fact, despite losing the white male vote by a 44-53 margin in 2006, Democrats have a larger majority in the House -- 233-202 -- than Republicans ever had after gaining a majority in the House in 1994. Republicans last held a majority of more than 30 seats in the House during the 80th Congress, which was elected in 1946. In addition to her repeated assertion that white men love Springsteen and are "no longer voting Democratic," Costello opened and closed the taped segment by playing clips of Springsteen singing "Born in the USA." However, Costello did not note that Springsteen supported Kerry s 2004 presidential campaign. In fact, Springsteen performed at several rallies as part of the MoveOn PAC s "Vote for Change Tour," as well as for the Kerry campaign itself. An October 28, 2004, Salon.com article reported that during a Madison, Wisconsin, rally for Kerry: Springsteen ticked off a long list of the things that matter: economic justice, a living wage, a "sane and responsible foreign policy," civil rights, and "the protection and safeguarding of our precious democracy here at home." He said: "I believe that John Kerry honors these ideals. He has lived our history over the past 60 years, and he has formed an adult view of America and its people. " Further, during an interview on the October 7 edition of CBS 60 Minutes, Springsteen told correspondent Scott Pelley, in reference to certain actions by the Bush administration: "I think that we ve seen things happen over the past six years that I don t think anybody ever thought they d see in the United States." From the interview: PELLEY: What s on your mind? What are you writing about? SPRINGSTEEN: I would say that what I do is I -- is I try to chart the distance between American ideals and American reality. That s how my music is laid out. It s like we re - we ve reached a point where we re so intent on protecting ourselves that we re willing to destroy the best parts of ourselves to do so. PELLEY: What do you mean? SPRINGSTEEN: Well, I think that we ve seen things happen over the past six years that I don t think anybody ever thought they d see in the United States. When people think of the American identity, they don t think of torture, they don t think of illegal wiretapping, they don t think of voter suppression, they don t think of no habeas corpus, no right to a lawyer to -- you know? Those are things that -- those are -- those are things that are anti-American. PELLEY: You know, I think this record is going to be seen as anti-war. And you know there are people watching this interview who are going to say to themselves, "Bruce Springsteen is no patriot." SPRINGSTEEN: Well, that s the -- that s just the language of the day, you know? The modus operandi for anybody who doesn t like somebody, you know, criticizing where we ve been or where we re going, you know. It s unpatriotic at any given moment to sit back and let things pass that are -- that are damaging to some place that you love so dearly and that has given me so much and that I believe in -- I still feel and see as a beacon of hope and possibility. Costello isn t the first media figure to misleadingly link Springsteen -- and, in particular, the song "Born in the USA" -- with Republican politics. Despite the fact that Springsteen referred during a 1980 concert to Ronald Reagan s election the day before as "pretty frightening," in 1984, Reagan and conservative columnist George Will, among others, attempted to suggest that the musician supported Reagan and his politics. Springsteen rebuked Reagan during a performance a few days later. From the October 11 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: BLITZER: And have white men abandoned the Democratic Party, or is it the other way around? Stay with us, you re in The Situation Room. [...] BLITZER: A new book says white men are abandoning the Democratic Party. It claims Democrats are neglecting them, and that could cost their party the election. Let s go to Carol Costello, she s here in The Situation Room. The book sort of lays out exactly why these men are leaving the Democratic Party. What s going on? COSTELLO: Well, the Democratic Party is pretty much ignoring white men. You know, the book is called The Neglected Voter, you know, the one we used to call the "NASCAR dad." Well, I don t know what either political party is calling the white male voter this time around, but the Democrats appear to be losing them. [begin video clip] [clip of Springsteen singing "Born in the USA"] COSTELLO: They may be born in the USA and love "The Boss," but they re no longer voting the Democratic way. They are blue-collar, white male voters, who, according to a new book, are the only chance Democrats have to win in 08. But getting them to vote for Clinton, Edwards, or Obama won t be easy. KUHN: The Democratic Party came to stand up for everybody but them, every group but them. And in fact, stand against them. COSTELLO: Kuhn, who wrote The Neglected Voter, says Democrats are guilty of portraying white men as the only privileged group in the United States who deserve no help. KUHN: They, ironically, came to feel the scapegoat of liberalism, that they came to feel stereotyped as the bigoted Archie Bunker from All in the Family. COSTELLO: And that stereotype does play out in the Democratic world of politics. The Democrat that Republicans love to hate, Michael Moore, wrote a book called Stupid White Men, touted as outing "that big special-interest group that s laying waste to the world as we know it: stupid white men." Conservatives fought back, painting the Democratic Party as so into diversity, it can t see the color white. COULTER: I think Democrats have hit upon the perfect candidate with Barack Obama, or as I call him, B. Hussein Obama. B. Hussein Obama is half-white, half-black ... so there s somebody for every Democrat to vote for. COSTELLO: And it s all played into this: According to exit polls at every presidential election from 1980 on, no Democratic candidate could even get 40 percent of the white male vote. And, Kuhn says, as a result, America has seen just one Democratic president in 27 years. While some analysts say Kuhn is onto something, others say, "Not so fast. Maybe Democrats aren t going after white male voters because times have changed." KEATING HOLLAND (CNN polling director): There s a lot of Democratic analysts who would argue as a counter-argument that the growing group in this country are not whites, not white men but, instead, minorities -- Hispanics, blacks and Asians. COSTELLO: If that s true, what s a Springsteen-loving white man to do? Recent history says, "Vote Republican." [end video clip] COSTELLO: But there is a small sign Democrats may be making inroads with white male voters: they picked up 6 percent more white men in 2006, but Wolf, as you know, one election does not a trend make. BLITZER: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much, Carol Costello.

On the October 10 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor, while discussing Democratic presidential candidates positions on terrorism, Time political analyst Mark Halperin asserted that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Sen. Barack Obama (IL), or former Sen. John Edwards (NC) "get[s] in" to the White House, "I think they re going to have a come-to-Jesus moment where they sit down with Dick Cheney and George Bush." Host Bill O Reilly interjected, "And change their minds." Halperin continued: "And get a little bit of an eye-opening about just what s on the line every day in that job now, post 9-11 -- how hard it is." O Reilly then turned to Democratic strategist Liz Chadderdon and asked whether she would be "very disappointed" if this happened. He added: "You don t want aggressive action against the terrorists, do you?" O Reilly later asserted, "But if I m the GOP, all day long, I m going after that terror warrior concept." Halperin responded: "Don t worry. The minute the Democrat gets in, if the Democrats win, they re going to see some things they re not expecting." Further, during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of the show, O Reilly stated that the "Democratic Party can easily be branded soft on terrorism," and asserted: "[N]o way Edwards will ever win the presidential election. Kid Rock has a better chance." From the October 10 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor: O REILLY: So, just talking about your personal security, would you support President John Edwards? Remember, no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant. "Talking Points" believes most Americans reject that foolishness. And it has become a problem for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama is much closer to the Edwards view than Senator Clinton is, but the Democratic Party can easily be branded as soft on terrorism. It s tough to make distinctions in this area. Six years after 9-11, I am simply amazed at how soft some Americans have become when it comes to confronting the jihadist killers. This isn t a game. This is life or death -- and the cemeteries here in the New York area prove it. Again, no way Edwards will ever win the presidential election. Kid Rock has a better chance. But just the fact that his misguided view of the world is so attractive to the left media and others is disturbing, to say the least. And that s the "Memo." [...] O REILLY: Ms. Chadderdon, what I think the GOP is going to do, and you see it with Rudy Giuliani already primarily, and Mitt Romney will take up the drum as well, is say, look, these people aren t going to protect you against terrorists. They re all a bunch of touchy-feely liberals. They re not going to do anything. They live in a world of theory. And you re going to be danger. And Osama bin Laden has a John Edwards bumper sticker on his cave wall. I mean, that s what they re going to do, are they not? CHADDERDON: Well, you know, if that s what they do, then I think we re actually going to beat them worse than I think we re already going to beat them. I mean, the bottom line here is that no one is trying to make it easier for terrorists. And no one is trying to make America less safe. But frankly, the Bush-Cheney administration has made this country less safe by forging into a war that has done nothing but create more terrorists. O REILLY: All right. So, you re going to go back to the Iraq battlefield. You know -- and I understand why the Democrats are going to do that. I don t know if that s going to resonate. Things seem to be getting better in Iraq. But you said something very interesting: "The Democratic Party is going to make us safer." You believe that the Democratic Party would make us safer in the world? How can then you explain a vote against branding the Revolutionary Guards in Iran non-terrorists? How can you explain a vote like that? These are terrorists all day long. Everybody knows it. Yet, Obama voted against this. Did Hillary vote against it? I m not even sure. Did she vote against it? Did she? HALPERIN: She voted for it. Obama didn t vote, but said he would have voted against it. O REILLY: OK, so we got Edwards and Obama, Liz, not wanting to brand this terrible organization terrorists; Clinton playing it more conservatively. So, I mean, how can you tell the American people that that s a smart vote? CHADDERDON: Well, because as you pointed out at the beginning of your show, part of the wording in that vote was aggressive action. That s just Bush-Cheney code for wanting to invade Iran. And the last thing that anyone wants to do is give this out-of-control administration free rein to go invade another country and drag us into another huge war. O REILLY: All right. So you think the Democratic candidates are going to tell the American people that even if Iran continues its misbehavior, develops a nuclear weapon, tries to dominate the Persian Gulf, we re not going to take aggressive action against them. Is that what the Democratic Party s going to do? CHADDERDON: At this point, I think that America is smarter than to realize that going into another no-win war is the right thing to do, and -- O REILLY: OK, so we can t defeat Iran then. Is that what you re saying? Is that -- the Democratic candidates are going to get up there and say -- CHADDERDON: I don t think we can -- O REILLY: -- "Look, we re afraid of them. We can t defeat them." You think that s a winner? CHADDERDON: That s ridiculous. No one is saying that we can t defeat them. What we re saying -- O REILLY: You just said it s a no-win war. Why would it be ridiculous? CHADDERDON: Are we winning the war in Iraq? O REILLY: I don t know. CHADDERDON: How long we been there? We ve been in the war in Iraq -- O REILLY: I mean, I know we re not losing it. CHADDERDON: -- longer than we were in World War II, and we don t seem to be winning there. O REILLY: All right. I think you might want to rethink that. I think if a Democratic candidate, Mark, gets up there and says, "We can t win a war in Iran," that s a loser [inaudible]. HALPERIN: Democrats would go for broke, Bill, no matter who the nominee is. They re going to say their policies are going to keep America safer. That they can -- O REILLY: What policies? What s John Edwards anti-terror policy? What is it? HALPERIN: He s got a couple things he s talked about. I could tell you if you want. But you re right. You re right. O REILLY: No, no, no. Give me his big one. What s John Edwards anti-terror policy? What is it? HALPERIN: He s for better communication with countries -- O REILLY: Ah, better communication -- that ll do it. HALPERIN: -- with countries around the world for coordinating intelligence. That s one of the things he s for. But you re right. He s basically got a critique saying, "Bush is wrong on Guantanamo" -- O REILLY: Yeah. HALPERIN: "Bush is wrong on" -- O REILLY: This is bad, this is bad -- HALPERIN: This is bad. O REILLY: This is bad. HALPERIN: That may work to help him in the Democratic Party. I think you re right, in the general election, he d be opening himself up to attacks. O REILLY: Well, you know -- HALPERIN: But let me say one more thing. If he did get in or if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I think they re going to have a come-to-Jesus moment where they sit down with Dick Cheney and George Bush -- O REILLY: And change their minds. HALPERIN: -- and get a little bit of an eye-opening about just what s on the line every day in that job now, post-9-11 -- how hard it is. O REILLY: But Liz would be very disappointed if the come-to-Jesus moment happens, wouldn t you, Liz? You don t want aggressive action against the terrorists, do you? CHADDERDON: I don t want to see more young men and women dying for reasons that we, at this point, simply can t explain. That s what I don t want to see. O REILLY: Do you think the jihadists want to kill a soldier? Do you think that Iran is in bed with these people and they want to cause damage to America? CHADDERDON: I think our behavior, like torture, and kidnapping, and waterboarding, has definitely led to the creation of more terrorists. O REILLY: OK, so it s our fault? CHADDERDON: I think we ve made it worse, yes. O REILLY: OK. Now you really think that some presidential candidate running on a platform that the war on terror is our fault is going to win? You really believe that? CHADDERDON: No. What I m saying is, is that by continuing the Bush-Cheney policies of torture and kidnapping and not allowing counsel to those victims in Guantanamo is not the American way. If we re going to say we re the greatest country in the world, then we need to act like it. O REILLY: OK. Well, I think it s a loser, Liz, but I m going to give Mark the last word. I mean, if I m going to take what Liz just said to me, and I m going to tell the American people that we don t really have a plan to fight terrorism other than communication -- that s our plan. You know, we re a torture nation -- and we re bad. And we really brought a lot of this terrorism on ourself. Mark, do you really believe that that candidate s going to win? HALPERIN: You and Liz both went right at the reality, though. In this election, Iraq is going to trump that. If there s not another terrorist attack, the Democrats are going to be able to say, "You didn t know how to handle Iraq, therefore you don t know how to handle the war on terror." A negative critique just the way the Republicans critique the Democrats health-care plan is mostly a negative critique. It could work. O REILLY: Yeah. HALPERIN: It might be enough. O REILLY: Might be enough. But if I m the GOP, all day long, I m going after that terror warrior concept. HALPERIN: Don t worry, the minute the Democrat gets in, if the Democrats win -- O REILLY: Yeah. HALPERIN: -- they re going to see some things they re not expecting.