Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Attacking Hillary Clinton Just Because They Can

Reported by Janie - October 18, 2006 -

Last night (10/17) on "Special Report", host Brit Hume used the lead in his "Two Minutes of Hate" (AKA "Grapevine") segment to attack Hillary Clinton for a story she told, which she never claimed to be true.

Hume snarkily "reported":

The campaign staff of Senator Hillary Clinton says that more than 10 years after her original claim — it turns out she was not named after the famous mountain climber — Sir Edmund Hillary — after all.

A campaign spokeswoman has confirmed what has been suspected by many since 1995 — when after meeting with the first man to scale Mount Everest — Mrs. Clinton said her mother had told her she had read about Sir Edmund Hillary while pregnant in 1947 — and decided Hillary would be a nice name for her daughter.

The problem with the story is that Sir Edmund didn't become famous until 1953 — when Hillary Rodham was five-years-old. That didn't stop Bill Clinton from re-telling the tale in his biography.
But the senator's campaign now tells The New York Times "it was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter." The news is of particular embarrassment to The New York Times — which has repeatedly published the Hillary myth as fact — and did so as recently as six days ago.

Comment: Hume is trying to make both Hillary and Bill appear as though they are liars, since that is the impression the Republicans constantly try to promote.

Whether the story is true or not has no bearing - notice the most important part of the story: "Mrs. Clinton said her mother had told her she had read about Sir Edmund Hillary while pregnant in 1947 — and decided Hillary would be a nice name for her daughter."

Her mother told her. That's all the Clintons are saying - that it's a story told to her by her mother, not that it is in fact 100% true.

But Hume will take anything he can find that may portray the Clintons in a poor light in order to advance the Republican agenda - even silly, inconsequential "stories" such as this.

Isn't there, oh I don't know, a war or something to report about?