No longer must Barack Obama look to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a source of black liberation theology, for he has Hillary Clinton and she's setting him freer by the day.
In fact, I should think political handicappers everywhere have been frantic this weekend restructuring David Brooks' public offering of 20-to-1 odds of a Hillary comeback to something far closer to an absolute write-down. If you had your money on the IL-AR-PA-NY native, then all I can advise is that you join a support group to share your pain, but don't -- I repeat, do not -- double down. You'd have better luck being bullish on Bear Stearns.
Not that Hillary's devout core of followers will care, or be partisanly fazed in the least, but the last 48 hours have been brutal for the "most vetted" candidate -- a descriptive status that requires regular updating, and for good reason. For journalistic vetters, Hillary is the ideal vettee, because playing it straight is simply beyond her indefatigable Nixonian urges.
The recent brutality began late Friday -- "take-out-the-trash day," as it's known, and this particular Friday was trashier than most. Hillary finally released her tax returns -- weeks late and a year's worth short -- but the clever timing meant to minimize hostile public reaction was a trifle less clever than intended.
As the New York Times put it: "In what proved to be an awkward juxtaposition, the disclosure of the records — which revealed the Clintons to be in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent, or roughly 14,500, of all taxpayers — came on the day that Mrs. Clinton called for the creation of a cabinet-level post to tackle poverty."As understatements go, awkward, indeed. But at least that wretched insult publicly overpowered, for the moment, the wretched insult of delaying, once again, the release of her 2007 returns. And as we know, the Clintons live for nothing more than the moment. Lord, just get us through one more day. We'll deal with today's backlash in defense of yesterday tomorrow.
But, oops, what did tomorrow bring, which today would be yesterday? You got it. Another scandal.
Hillary, it seems, has been fibbing again. For five weeks Hillary ...
That abomination speaks for itself. As does this one, which is to say, yet another one from merely the past couple days:has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee. The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured. "We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System. Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story.
Mark Penn, chief campaign strategist to the New York senator, has apologized for meeting with Colombia's U.S. ambassador in his separate role as a lobbyist hired by the South American country to win congressional approval of [a] trade deal with the United States [that his candidate opposes].
But I'm sure Hillary knew nothing about it. She's a perpetual victim; either subjected, like Captain Queeg, to the machinations of disloyal subordinates, or, like Richard Nixon, to the machinations of a hostile press.
For weeks, as many progressives pondered the senator's disruptive campaign, their underlying sentiment mirrored those famous words of Cromwell to the Rump Parliament: "You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
But no longer. Let her bamboozle those few she still can. Every passing day only makes Barack Obama look that much better.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
HRC a gift to Repub electioneering....
Hillary's devout core of followers.
For your information,although I know you are in denial about it PM; but Hillary's "devout core of followers" as you disdainfully put it is roughly half of the Democratic voters and 60% of the Democratic base(those who will vote Democratic regardless of the ticket).
More nonsense from andyod
Andyod says "roughly half of all Democratic voters and 60% of the Democratic base" are "devout followers" of Hillary Clinton.
The fact that close to half of the people who voted in Democratic primaries voted for Clinton does NOT make them "devout followers." How absurd. How dishonest. How absurdly dishonest.
And recent polls show that many of those voters have changed their opinion of Hillary. Since February, the percentage of Democrats and independents who still have a favorable opinion of Hillary has plunged to a record low. Each week, the polls show her approval rating sinking.
She still has a ways to go to reach George Bush's record-breaking disapproval rating, but hey, she's working on it.
how dishonest
OB---slow down....
Hey OB--you should be able to handle the conversation better than this. First, ITS dishonest, and secondly, DO YOU REALLY WANT ANYONE'S VOTE....TAKEN AWAY?
I don't think your opinions would be what Obama believes in, man. Stand by your handle.(name)
What an idiot.
Yum. Yum.
Anyone but a black candidate
What I think vtjozef is really saying, is please vote for anything but a black man.
Ralph Nader's game is clear enough for anyone with a brain. Every four years, some people give him a lot of money to run for President. When it's all over, they tell him to go away and keep quiet until the next election.
"Our long-range goal is to break up the two parties," Nader says. But that is clearly a silly farce. Third-party candidates work the year round to build support for the third party. Nader however works for just a half a year, then retires for the next 3 1/2 years, and starts the cycle all over again. He's been doing that since 1992. He's a professional spoiler. (His campaign in 2004 actually sold T-shirts with the word "SPOILER" on them! He probably should add the word "CHUTZPAH" on the back.)
But he's fooling fewer and fewer voters with his spoiler game. In 2000, he received 2.75 percent of votes. But in 2004, he wasn't able to get on the ballot in 17 states! And he got on the ballot in Pennsylvania with the help of thousands of signatures that the court found fraudulent. Nader also got into trouble in Oregon where he was accused of illegally receiving help to get on the ballot from Bush's re-election campaign and the Oregon Republican Party:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html
In 2004, he received only a seventh of the votes he had received four years earlier -- just 0.38 of one percent, under 464,000 votes. In November, I'd be surprised if he receives more than 200,000 votes nationwide.
I think that's how many T-shirts he sold four years ago. I'm sure those suckers would like to get their money's worth.
bullsheet
"spoiler game"
You clearly can't read
No, we Democrats have no reason to worry about Ralph Nader's silly campaign.
You clearly can't read. I showed you the percentage of votes Nader received in 2000 and 2004 -- which show how utterly irrelevant he became four years ago. This time, he's an even bigger joke.
Nader can no longer fool anyone but the brain dead - - who generally do not show up at the polls. Perhaps, you're an exception. If so, it will be of no conceivable consequence.
Nader will be lucky if he can get on the ballot in 25 states and receive more than 150,000 votes in November.
Ralph Nader is the white Allan Keyes; a political distraction and a running joke. And his supporters are even funnier.
thanks for the tip
Our Butts Taste Good,...Huh??
VTjokes----you're stupider than the average Repug (pretending to be a Naderite). All you have to do is post one or two more times---to clearly remind Hills followers, and all the rest of us: who the real enemy is, and, just how arrogantly pea-brained you hopeless losers are.
Sure, WE argue, ITS CALLED THE DEMOCRATIC ELECTIVE PROCESS anyway, its how we emote---something I know you wouldn't understand under that Fascist regime you toil for (we're simply not the fall-in-line cartoon simpletons you clowns are), but you KNOW what? Hillarys followers ??---THEIR FAMILY--and you're NOT, And, if their candidate should win, by some chance.....it'll be a honest day in the Republican Party---before I EVER vote for McInsane---OR---that damn, disruptive has-been, NADER!
So IF our pathology is "the pathology of bashing the opposition so badly that all the weaknesses by comparison....serve to high-light what a SORRY. DECREPIT, OLD selection you desperate imbeciles have in John McInsane"......then, you're RIGHT, WE plan to TOTALLY BASH your clowns like you deserve. If, for no other reason, then the fact, that you wasted good votes in '00 and '04. For THAT alone, I ought to jack-slap you back to the F***-in' stone age!!
Look, crawl back under your rock, and stay OUT OF OUR BUSINESS---for whatever pathologies you think you glean from OUR in-house debates, make no mistake about it---WE WILL BE OF ONE MIND WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH YOU AND YOUR KIND......COUNT ON IT.
Fools rush in...
Fools rush in
Where you "Angels" Fear to Tread ?...Oh, Please
Well, Neva, I see you've slithered out of your snake-hole again, just in time to bite some unsuspecting, innocent poster on the ankle. Welcome back, I haven't smelled you around these parts in some time---or was that a dead rat?
It figures, you'd appear again---just in time, to pick up where you left off---bashing any body you perceive to the left of your same ol' MODERATE, guilt-ridden, bitter, sniping. Since moderates like you have such an illustrious, recent history of accommodating ALL of Bush's mad monstrosities--and the off-spring of your acquiescences to this fool, are the bitter fruit we've all been forced to feed on today. I see you have not used your self-imposed exile to reconcile your inner demons---now, have you? You ex-moderates who HATE that the Democratic Party is ASCENDING back to its LIBERAL roots, just can't un-wad your panties, can you? Male or Female.
Go, and waste your vote, such as it is, (and also time), in some vain attempt to make a statement against the "decimated" Democratic Party----and see where THAT gets you on Nov. 4th. You'll be both BITTER and FRUSTRATED. Nader seems 'pretty good' to a lot of losers like you, because you're burning all your bridges behind you, and the options are few.
You people OWNED the Democratic Party for the last 20 years---and how did THAT work out?? You have sucked-up to, compromised with, lackey-ed for, and 'triangulated' away, our freedoms; praising Republicans all the time; forsaking your obligations to THIS party; and empowering them with--your silent compliance....to commit immeasurable mis-deeds....and now, that they've kicked you out into the night-air like a used up streetwalker...you show up here to criticize the very backlash within your own party-----that you helped create.
I hope you really, one day, look yourself in the eye, and realize, that Obama, this movement, and the residual anger the party feels now toward the policies you helped create...is only a logical extension of growth that you don't agree with.
Go on, CREATE a 3rd party..it JUST MIGHT be good for the country....But for now, THIS is all you have: the PROMISE of Obama, or the despair, presumably, you've experienced the last 8 years. Stop whining EVERY TIME YOU POST HERE....AT LEAST,........the choice is still YOURS.
What hole??
The Black Hole of your Thinking....
Neva----thank You: for proving everything I suspected about you was/is correct.
Yeah, YOU DID INDIRECTLY HELP CREATE the very policies I loathe, yet toil, under every day, BECAUSE OF INDECISIVE, COMPROMISING, VACILLATING ex-Democrats like you! You people took over the Dem party under the Clinton administration, and with your benign acquiescences, your smug conciliations, your effortless concessions, and your "middle-of-the-road" self-delusionary thinking, you all were more than happy to "reach out" and find some fraudulent, mythical "alliance" with the "good Republicans".
The problem with that was...the "good Republicans"--were not calling the shots!! Chuck Nagel, and the rest, were BB's against a battleship, and instead of standing on sound LIBERAL principles---YOU PEOPLE decided..."uuumm, maybe the Republicans are right, liberal IS such a DEVISIVE word";......and with your "compromises", and your "triangulatory" thinking, and your fear of the vicissitudinary impacts of Liberalism---you were all lulled into some kind of mute, "conspiracy of complicity" with the Devil that is Bush.
Thus, making our party: a 'silent party', to all the world-wide calamity spawned by these snakes; in the name of 'anti-terrorism' we have wrought almost all that ails our country today, and by extension, all we have imposed upon the world.
Hence, the natural backlash to these atrocities was/is a restoration of "Liberal" values--like, hope and change. Empowering that element within the party that truly believes in these principles. Now, those forces are in play, and embodied in Obama--and you losers HAD your "days of compromise", now, you are floundering around, bitterly complaining about what has "happened to the Democratic Party"?-------NOTHING!!....It just "came back home" to its core beliefs--------NO MORE 'Triangulation", No MORE NAFTA...and loss of American sovereignty, NO MORE support of Bush's policies..AND HIS WAR, NO MORE right-wing philosophy, NO MORE Rovian tactics, NO MORE INEPT cronyism, NO MORE so-called "plausible options"--like NADER, and NO MORE MODERATE philsophies of kissing the asses of corrupt, evil republican hacks..............so deal with it.
Simply put, there is a new reality you don't want to deal with; I told you the other day:
"THIS is all you have: the PROMISE of Obama, or the despair, presumably, you've experienced the last 8 years. Stop whining................the choice is still YOURS."
Black Hole of Thinking
lol
Not this time, Repug thugs
You Repugnican tricksters got away with this in 2000, helping Nader get on the ballot and drawing nearly 3 percent of the popular vote, the majority of which would have gone to Al Gore.
But despite getting caught red handed helping Nader get on the ballot in 2004, your efforts didn't help very much in that election. Nader failed to get on the ballot in 17 states and he drew only 0.38 percent of the popular votes!
In Alaska, where Nader received his highest percentage of votes, only 1 in 131 voters cast their ballots for him.
In South Carolina, where he received the lowest percentage, only 1 in 770 people fell for the Nader ruse. Overall, only 1 in 263 American voters wasted their vote on Nader in 2004.
As the only great Republican president said, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
With so many elephant trunks now visibly propping Ralph Nader up, the only people left for him to fool are the brain dead, the vast majority of whom are unwilling or unable to vote. I'd be surprised if the professional spoiler draws more than 0.1 percent of Presidential votes in November. His game is up. And so is yours.
Your crystal ball apparently has a crack
The Gene Pool
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwn ..........
So Hillary is a pathological liar. How do we know? Because she tells a narrative about an uninsured, pregnant woman who is denied medical treatment and later dies. Turns out the story may not be true. I say “may,” because the hospital that violated the woman’s privacy by discussing her treatment will not provide any further details of her treatment. Is it possible the story is either exaggerated or a complete fabrication? Sure. Is it possible the woman sought pre-natal care, was told she would have to first pay $100 (sounds like a co-pay or co-pay balance), and couldn’t afford it? Sure. Does it matter that Clinton did not create this story line? No … she’s a liar. Does it matter that the anecdote was told to her by a local deputy who had no motive to lie? No … she’s a liar. Does it matter that the anecdote sounds completely plausible? No … she’s a liar. Does it matter that her campaign attempted to verify the story but was unable to fully vet it? No … she’s a liar.
Unfortunately, the story will continue to get play by the MSM (and many prog blogs) over the coming days because it fits the narrative that the MSM and the right wing have built over the past 16 years – Hillary and Bill are pathological liars. In this case she did manage to shoot herself in the foot by not fully confirming the anecdote before using it in her stump speeches, thus giving ammunition to her detractors. But as far as the media goes, this story fits the Clinton narrative, and that’s what really matters. It’s the old Gore/Bush “Wooden, habitual liar, policy wonk” vs. “Regular guy you wanna have a beer with” narrative of 2000. Or the “Wealthy, Mass., effete, Swiss-cheese, cheese steak liberal” vs. the (again) “Regular guy you wanna have a beer with” of 2004. It’s the “rich trial lawyer, effeminate, pretty boy” narrative they were constructing against Edwards, or the “straight-talking, war hero” narrative they’ve built for McCain.
The only difference now? The Clinton narrative is being pushed by some on the left because it either suits their purpose, or they despise the Clintons …… in some cases both. No! No! It’s because, unlike the Clinton supporters, WE care about these kinds of misstatements/exaggerations/lies! They show the true character and integrity of a candidate, and that’s what really matters! Please ………. every candidate, including Obama, has engaged in this kind of campaign puffery. Does it matter if a candidate is accurate and truthful? Sure … but it matters if they’re truthful about substantive, material matters, not whether Hillary landed in Tuzla under actual sniper fire (as opposed to the threat of snipers) or whether Obama minimized his connections and contributions from Tony Rezko ($50,000-$60,000 as opposed to more than triple that amount).
Frankly, I like Obama, but the hue and cry from some Clinton haters makes it tempting to reciprocate and delve into the misstatements/exaggerations/lies coming from the Obama side, because they’ve gotten relatively little play in the MSM, and certainly none in the articles posted on Kos, Buzzflash, etc. Of course, they don’t really fit the narrative of “change” and a “new, positive kind of politics.”
Should Barack get the nomination – and it appears likely he will - I just hope the MSM’s narrative doesn’t change before November.
Except this is mostly of her own making...
Yaaawn?
You'll have to be more specific ...
... about what each of the "lies" are. She's already acknowledged the Bosnia issue, but if you really want me to address them, I have to know what the "lies" are supposed to be.
Yboy.......
Maybe he's said all he has to say about it. Maybe he doesn't want, or need, you to "address them"-------when did YOU become the final ARBITER of who says what to whom?
You wrote: "I have to know what the "lies" are supposed to be."---good, then go back and read ALL YOUR POSTS.
Testy, testy ...
His post starts with "How about ...," suggesting he wanted a response, answer, etc. Just offering to do so, but if that bothers you, well .........
.... all the better.
Yboy....Thats Typical.......
As usual---you're looking at things bass ackwards....its not the BEGINNING of a sentence that infers whether or not he wants a reply or answer from you.....its the ENDING, of it;
and whether his sentence ended in a ".", meaning HE MADE A STATEMENT, not always proffering, or expecting a response.
Or, whether it ended in a "?", meaning, he's ASKING for a response, or he MIGHT want a response, from SOMEONE.....not necessarily, (or obligatorily) from.........YOU.
Look again ...
The post is either two sentences without ending punctuation between them (i.e. prior to "Hillary"), or a "run-on" sentence. Kinda makes it difficult to determine whether it was a query or not. Like most people posting on blogs, I don't think punctuation was bettysdad's highest priority ..... Good thing BF has you!
BTW - The first word (or words) of a sentence, however, can often infer a question. For example:
Did you previously suggest I needed to learn the "fine art of knowing when to shut up?"
Why do you want me to stop?
Does my continuing bother you?
Ain't that a shame?
See? All questions, but in this case ...... rhetorical.
re HRC's victimization... (yawn)
Yman tosses more chaff to obscure and obfuscate
Nice try (I'm being facetious, it was rather lame). Hillary's whopper among whoppers was how she bravely ran through sniper fire in Bosnia, a place that was too "dangerous" to send the President, so they sent the First Lady and their teenage daughter instead!
Now that's a quadruple-deck whopper, so we can understand your reluctance to try and spin that into a slip of the tongue.
But let's not add further disinformation at the expense of innocent parties. The hospital did not invade the woman's privacy or her still-borne baby's. Hillary did that.
Without checking the truth of the story, Hillary repeatedly named that poor woman over a 5-week period, falsely describing her as a minimum-wage uninsured pizza waitress when she was actually the medically insured manager of the restaurant.
Hillary libeled the hospital. The hospital had a right to correct the record. The hospital DID NOT deny the fatally-ill woman medical care because she couldn't come up with $100 -- as Hillary repeatedly lied. The hospital provided her with care and has NO reason to be shamed. And the hospital did NOT release medical information -- as you falsely claimed.
Because it was a matter of public record that the woman and her baby had died under the hospital's care (although not yet reported by the media), the hospital did what it had a right and obligation to do -- it corrected the record. The woman was NOT denied care, as Hillary falsely and repeatedly charged. The hospital said that it provided the woman and her baby appropriate care. (It did not describe the care, because that is not permitted by law without the family's consent.)
For Hillary to invade the deceased woman's privacy and exploit her family's terrible tragedy is shocking.
That you would defend it with misdirection and further disinformation is not nearly so shocking. We're getting used to that.
Hillary falsely made the hospital a villain in this tragedy. And here you are, trying to do the same in order to deflect Hillary's wrongdoing onto others.
Where to start ...
Oh Andy ... as usual, it's hard to know where to start when you get so much, so obviously wrong. Seems like "rather lame" was the only thing you managed to get right, Andy.
As I stated, the story "MAY not be true" because we don't know all the facts, and likely never will. Luckily we have Andy, who does know all the facts, and who unequivocally declares that the woman was not denied care. Really? How does Andy know this? Easy .......... because the hospital said so.
What an incredibly efficient and novel way of determing facts ......... just ask one side! Why, this new, unbelievably efficient method of fact finding could be the basis for an entirely new judicial system! It will ensure that our court systems are no longer clogged with those expensive, time consuming, annoying wadddayacallums they used to have ...... oh, yeah ....... "trials." Right now, hospital and insurance attorneys all over the country are breathing a collective sigh of relief, content in the knowledge that they will no longer be subjected to the vagaries of the old method of fact finding: witnesses, evidence, judges and juries. All is well ......... we just need to ask their clients what really happened! Andy for the Supreme Court!
We can even take this new system a step further as it relates to Hillary Clinton. Hillary "libeled" the hospital? Really? How do we know? Justice Andy says so, silly. Never mind the extremely difficult problem of proving "intent" in defamation suits (i.e that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, or it must be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue). Never mind that Hillary never spoke the woman's name. Forget the fact that she never identified the hospital. And don't even mention the fact that "libel" requires that the person accused of libel must have published the statement (Pssst ... oral statements are generally considered slander, IF you prove all the other elements). Hey, Andy's system may not be so accurate or fair, but it sure is efficient!
So pack up the dog and get ready to head to the big leagues, Justice Andy. You may not be qualified, but it sure pays better than being a "freelance" journalist!
A few corrections of this scoundrel's falsehoods
It seems that correcting Yman's false and misleading statements has become a full-time job. I'll correct just a few a leave the rest for others (who don't have anything better to do):
Libel is defamatory speech that is fixed, not transitory. It does not have to be "published" as Yman falsely states. Libel could be spoken words that are recorded on a tape, broadcast by radio or on the Internet, or written down by a reporter. You can also libel someone without words, in a drawing, painting, photograph, or sculpture, etc.
Slander is defamatory speech that is spoken to third parties but NOT recorded and/or transmitted.
When someone makes a defamatory speech and that speech is recorded by a reporter, that is libel.
Yman is also speaking falsely when he says defamation requires intent. That's not true. For a statement to be defamatory, only two things must be proven: 1) the speech is false; 2) the speech may be harmful to the plaintiff's reputation.
Yman may be confused by the additional requirement imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That famous 1964 decision established an added protection for the news media by requiring "public figures" to prove that a reporter knew the speech was untrue or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true.
This extra legal hurdle only applies to plaintiffs who are "thrust" onto the public stage. It is not required for plaintiffs who are not considered public figures.
The poor woman Hillary Clinton victimized was certainly no public figure.
It is important to note that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan did NOT change the definition of defamation, libel, or slander. They remained the same: false speech that harms a party's reputation. The decision only established a degree of protection for news reporters who make an honest mistake when reporting public events.
One more falsehood: Yman claims we can't possibly know that the hospital provided care for the deceased woman. That's utter rubbish from every direction we look.
For one, Clinton's spokesperson admits that they did not vet the story (by contacting either the hospital or the deceased woman's family) and that they are willing to accept the hospital's statement as true.
This alone should do be enough for any rational, honest person. For others, there are public records, such as the death certificates of the mother and baby, which show when, where, and how they died.
Does anyone doubt that Hillary would slink away to the shouts of "LIAR! LIAR!" if those public records show her story are true?
The fact that Hillary once again is slinking away from one of her tall tales is sufficient evidence for rational people that she has been caught again in a lie.
BTW, it doesn't matter whether Hillary mentioned the victim by name. She provided enough information for reporters to trace the story to the hospital that treated the dead woman. There aren't that many women who work in a pizza restaurant in that "small town on the banks of the Ohio River" who died several days after giving birth to a dead baby. When their local paper picked up the story, the hospital had no choice but to correct the record, and issue a statement that it did not turn away the critically ill woman, as Hillary falsely and repeatedly claimed.
Now she libeled the woman, too?
Call a lawyer .... immediately! A wealthy, high-profile defendant clearly libels a non-profit hospital AND a poor, young, dead woman who died in child-birth? Think of the size of the award! How about the contingency fee? The woman's relatives, the hospital and their lawyers should be lined up on the courthouse steps! It's every trial lawyer's dream!
Only it's not. It's only Justice Andy's dream. In reality, the suit hasn't been filed, and will never be filed, because there was no "libel."
More repugnant nonsense from the Repuglican troll
No, you idiot. I didn't say that. Under American law, defamation is an actionable tort only when it's against the living. Defamation against a dead person in not actionable.
Furthermore, idiot, the absence of a lawsuit does not mean a tort wasn't committed. The fact that you don't sue someone for smashing your bumper doesn't mean that your car wasn't hit.
Extremely small percentages of cases of libel are ever filed in court for a number of good reasons. They are very expensive, time consuming, and they often are counterproductive, especially in high profile cases.
Studies have shown that when a false statement is repeated over and over again, people will remember the statement and forget that it is false.
It therefore would not be a good idea for any hospital to sue a Presidential candidate -- especially after getting that candidate to back off from her defamatory statement.
I have a question
U.S. and UK defamation laws
Pg, there's several big differences between US and British defamation laws. By far the biggest is that the burden of proof in the U.S. is reversed. I'll address this difference first and the issue of "malice" further down.
In the U.S. the PLAINTIFF has to prove the alleged defamatory speech is false. US law assumes the innocence of the defendant -- the alleged defamer. The plaintiff has the burden to prove that the defendant spoke falsely and that the false speech may likely damage his or her reputation.
US law leans in favor of protecting free speech and the right of people to know, even at the risk of unintentional injury to to the reputation of people or groups.
Defamation laws in the UK lean more towards protecting the reputation of people and groups. If you're sued in Great Britain for defamation, you may be found guilty if you can't prove your speech was true (or that the speech is not likely to harm the plaintiff's reputation.)
Because the burden of proof is opposite in the UK, it's much harder to defend against a defamation suit there than in the U.S. That is why the notorious pro-Nazi historian David Irving sued American author Deborah Lipstadt in the UK rather then here. He clearly held the upper hand in Great Britain, where Lipstadt was required to prove Irving is a Holocaust denier.
In the U.S., Irving would have had to prove that Lipstadt's claim was false, that he is not a Holocaust denier (which is a whole lot harder, especially considering the fact that he's a notorious Holocaust denier).
Despite her much greater burden in British court, Lipstadt proved her case. The judge found that Irving is a anti-semite, racist, and Holocaust denier. Once a respected historian, he's been utterly discredited.
Now to your question of malice. I answered part of question in my previous post. First, the word "malice" as used in the Supreme Court decision Sullivan vs. the New York Times does not necessarily mean "having malicious intent."
In the context of that decision, it means speaking falsely either knowingly or with a reckless disregard for whether the speech is true. (Of course, if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant lied with the intention of injuring the plaintiff, that's all the better -- it could lead to extra punitive damages.)
So, proving intent to lie and/or to injure is not a requirement in defamation suits. Proving that the defendant acted with recklessness or carelessness should be sufficient.
This requirement did not exist in US law prior to the 1964 Supreme Court decision.
And more importantly, this requirement only applies for plaintiffs who are public figures -- people or groups who have "thrust" themselves or were "thrust" into the public limelight.
People not in the public limelight don't have to prove "malice" to win a defamation suit.
Here's a hypothetical example, if Hillary Clinton told a false story about a pharmacist who refused to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, that pharmacist could sue Clinton without having to prove she acted with malice, since he's not a public figure.
Let's reverse this hypothetical story: Let's say a newspaper quoted a pharmacist who claims Hillary Clinton tried to obtain a narcotic drug without a prescription. Assuming that pharmacist was not telling the truth, Hillary Clinton would NOT be able to successfully sue the newspaper unless she could prove that the reporter knew the story was false or else acted with a reckless disregard as to its truth. That's because she's a highly public figure.
The U.K. doesn't have this press protection. As far as I know no other country has this protection for the press.
And even in the U.S. there is no such protection for anyone who defames a non-public figure.
Some words of caution: Laws concerning defamation are far more complex than I'm able to describe. For example, even public figures have rights to privacy. So while a news reporter may get away with reporting a nasty lie about a public person, ironically, he or she could get into a lot of trouble by telling certain truths about that person.
While truth is always a defense in defamation suits, it is never a defense in an invasion of privacy suit (in fact, the truthfulness of a published story might actually make an invasion of privacy suit a lot worse!). And law suits can involve both invasion of privacy and defamation elements. So you better not listen to me; go call a lawyer who handles defamation and first amendment issues. :-)
Yaaaaaawwwwwwn is right
The "Yaaaaawwwwwwn" ...
... is the reaction to the Clinton haters and their predictable pushing of these kinds of gaffs, while hypocritically ignoring Obama's misstatements/lies/exagerrations. As far as the "she's a liar" meme that keeps following her around the campaign trail, it's not magical. It's the narrative the MSM and the right have been creating for years. What's funny is how many "true" progressives defended her from these kind of attacks in the past, but now eagerly, and hypocritically, rally behind them.
Geez, pg, you CAN read, can't you?
I read as well as you justify the unjustifiable (he he)
Yes, I know ...
... you were engaging in satire ... just not particularly good and/or interesting satire. That's why I (in kind) responded with satire ........ But if I need to spell it out like this, it kinda loses its punch, so try to stay with me.
BTW - "Family"? Please .... stop flattering yourself ........... (although I had a great-Uncle Louie who spent some time in Bellevue a while back. Hmmmmmm ....)
NO, YOU DON'T.....
My, My, My...what an arrogant little whelp you are......
First of all, you weren't being satirical, nor, were you even humorous, you were, simply..lying; because, by definiton, one of the components of satire is WIT---which you sorely lack. What you scrawled was a silly little (Im)Passion Play, that was an out-right false representation of the facts. Secondly, you have about as much a sense of humor as a child with autism.
PG called it correctly---you ARE an idiot savant! (which was funnier than anything you wrote), but, without the charm. But, he made the fatal mistake with haughty little jerks like you, he gave you credit for being a HUMAN. You wrote: "He needs to stop 'flattering' himself" by enlisting...YOU..as family? Well, he should call you "family'....but, he forgot to add the word "pet".
You're just like Neva, petty little people so inured with your own petty little wants and desires--that all any of you ever see--is 'boogey' men...behind every tree, instead of looking in the mirror, and being honest with yourselves.
I just thought it was very unbecoming of you; and you lack class; for him to extend to you an olive branch, and you immaturely whacked him with it. But, I know, what REALLY angers me about you, is......this little vignette, demonstrates, quite clearly, whats coming in the months ahead, AFTER Hillary INEVITABLY LOSES....by her own hand.
The satire ...
... I was refering to was my post "Yes I know" in response to pgbowden's post, not my original post, as you seem to think.
Unbecoming to accept pgbowden's olive branch? You mean the one he extended immediately after he admired my "idiot savant type of quality about your comprehension skills"? That must have "flew right over my Hillary-lovin head". Huh ........ I don't know how I missed that ......... Oooops!
What really hurts is that you think I "lack class" because I didn't accept this obviously sincere, good-faith gesture of reconciliation. You mean you don't like me?
Time to cry myself to sleep once again.
Thanks, Red
Have it your way
What makes you think I have pink skivvies?
Are you using those same cameras as Andy? You need to stop looking at men in their underwear.
End of satire (just to make it easier for you) - BTW - If you were sitting right next to me, I'd love for you to try to "punch my goddamn lights" out. Now THAT would be funny!
Forget the skivvies, see the narcissist in his native habitat
pg you're getting close...
pgbowden was close to hitting the bullseye when he said:
"You probably love reading your own words on the computer screen as much or more than anything in the world."
If you really would like to know, Yman is so much in love with himself, he drinks his own bath water.