Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- The "Electable" Candidate Admits Affair
- The Trouble with Lobbyists Running Your Campaign
- The Wit and Wisdom of Toby Keith
- Stumbles
- New Pentagon Report Uses Language Kerry Used in 2004 that Bush-Cheney Called "Dangerous" and "Naive"
- Deconstructing Hillary
- Exxon [Hearts] Obama
- Obama Wades Into Ugly Tennessee House Primary
- This Sunday on This Week
- Obama is Spiderman, McCain the Dark Knight
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« The Sword Falls on Penn: The Uribe Factor | Main | Is McCain a Pollyana on the Basra Cease Fire? »
In Montana, Clinton Invokes Suffragette Icon, Botches Suffragette History
April 07, 2008 8:09 AM
On Sunday in Montana, which will hold its primary on June 3, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, invoked a legendary state icon, former Rep. Jeannette Rankin, R-Mont., the first woman ever elected to Congress.
"Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote," Clinton told a crowd in a Missoula airplane hangar. "So who says men don't vote for a woman?"
But Clinton's description of Rankin's election is rather free from the constraints of historical fact -- Montana as a state gave women the right to vote in 1914 and even as a mere territory had given women the right to vote in 1887.
Check out this classic New York Times story from the year Rankin was elected, November 5, 1916, in which she is described as "a handsome and vigorous woman, with a wealth of red hair," and noting the states that allowed women the right to vote as of 1916: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Anyone could mess up a fact like this. But it's also true that those whose hearts contain special space for suffragette history will no doubt be disappointed by Clinton not knowing some of this basic history.
Several suffragette historians on the web -- Cliopatra, and others HERE and HERE have corrected Clinton's error, some expressing chagrin that she would get this wrong, others pointing out that Rankin was a pacifist, voting against going to war in World Wars I and II, and would doubtless take issue with Clinton's October 2002 war vote. (Though, c'mon, guys -- Rankin was clearly on the wrong side of history on those votes, my historian friends…let's not take this too far.)
- jpt
April 7, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (30)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/27849200
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Montana, Clinton Invokes Suffragette Icon, Botches Suffragette History:
I believe "suffragist" not "suffragette" was used in the United States. "Suffragette" was used in Great Britain.
Posted by: gary d | Apr 8, 2008 11:59:57 AM
Obama said, "I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill." --- LIAR, Obama's bill was rejected by his own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation --- mainly because of Obama's Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
Obama’s supporters would cover the world with smoke and mirrors to try and make Barack Hussein Obama look good, regardless of all his lies and ties to radical anti-Americans. Obama could butcher a kitten on the White House lawn and his followers would try to make it look like a good thing.
I imagine some of the people who have already voted for Obama would like to change their votes! Obama, along with Dean and Pelosi, are destroying the Democratic Party. They say we have 48 states … not 50.
Posted by: CONCERNED | Apr 8, 2008 8:39:47 AM
Hillary's the best: why don't you stop playing the poor little victim and face the fact that Hillary has more garbage and tells more lies than Obama. The way you Hillary supporters go on and on about how your candidate is unfairly treated by the media and Obama is always treated with kid gloves is just ridiculous. Find the lies, find the stories and the media will report them. And I don't mean Rezko or Wright or the nuclear legislation that he did sponsor (and, that was clearly watered down by its opponents - had nothing to do with his ties to exelon - other dem senators clarified that he did the best he could with the bill-it was defeated that's all). All this has not done him in...and he ran a good campaign and deserves to win if the numbers remain.
Posted by: ellen | Apr 7, 2008 11:43:22 PM
Obama said, "I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill." --- LIAR, Obama's bill was rejected by his own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation --- mainly because of Obama's Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
Obama’s supporters would cover the world with smoke and mirrors to try and make Barack Hussein Obama look good, regardless of all his lies and ties to radical anti-Americans. Obama could butcher a kitten on the White House lawn and his followers would try to make it look like a good thing.
I imagine some of the people who have already voted for Obama would like to change their votes! Obama, along with Dean and Pelosi, are destroying the Democratic Party. They say we have 48 states … not 50.
Posted by: CONCERNED | Apr 7, 2008 9:40:24 PM
Anyone who believes Clinton is a feminist needs to pay better attention.
Posted by: Denni | Apr 7, 2008 5:18:03 PM
YOU NEED TO "SEARCH" THE NAME:
LARRY SINCLAIR
TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT OBAMA!
Posted by: ONEVOTE | Apr 7, 2008 3:23:40 PM
More of the "Clinton is a liar theme". More attacks against Hillary coming from the In The Tank for Obama Media. Your strategy isn't working. Why don't you show some fairness and examine Barack Obama's statements and every single word he utters more closely. I'm sure you would find many lies, distortions, and misstatements, but it wouldn't matter because you would never report them.
Do you really think this story will help people forget about Rev. Wright? No. You will never be able to help Barack Obama escape that issue. Not now. Not ever.
When are you going to realize that Americans are well aware of the media bias against Hillary Clinton. The media's prejudice has turned people off to your reporting. It also just makes Hillary supporters fight even harder. This story really has nothing to do with so called lies or "errors" but more to do with bashing Hillary. Hillary's support is still going STRONG! Hillary 08!
Why don't you do an article on Media Bias?
Posted by: Hillary's the Best! | Apr 7, 2008 12:49:37 PM
I do think the people complaining about the people piling on to every factual mistake have a point.
BUT ... it is also the case that the Clinton campaign could so easily avoid most of these problems with better fact-checking!
Similarly, when the Clintons were in office I frankly didn't care whether or not he was sleeping with various women on the side, didn't seem relevant to me as far as the main job of the Presidency.
BUT... if you are a politician in America (as opposed to France) you have to KNOW this is way too risky politically, and at the very least be EXTREMELY discrete.
Every campaign and every presidency will have its gaffes. What matters to me is how well the people do guarding against these as best they can and then how they handle the apology or adjustment when the issue comes to light.
Posted by: Trillium | Apr 7, 2008 12:39:11 PM
It's clear that Hillary's campaign would be doing a much better job if she hired you as a fact-checker, Jake! And I bet, compared to Mark Penn, your rates would seem VERY reasonable.
Of course, there might be a problem with actually getting paid.
Posted by: Trillium | Apr 7, 2008 12:15:31 PM
The surprising fact to me is that Hillary didn’t claim starting the suffrage movement like she did the women’s peace movement in Ireland. Joyce McCartan is too dead to complain about it even after Hillary spoke at the lecture honoring her.
Posted by: CLeduc | Apr 7, 2008 11:27:56 AM
Who cares what Hillary says most of it is just lies and fluff, perhaps that is why she is losing, and will loose the nomination.
Posted by: Kate | Apr 7, 2008 11:14:57 AM
Who cares what Hillary says most of it is just lies and fluff, perhaps that is why she is losing, and will loose the nomination.
Posted by: Kate | Apr 7, 2008 11:14:35 AM
The last refuge of a losing candidate: "Vote for me becauase I'm a woman."
Posted by: Sarah Cole | Apr 7, 2008 10:55:12 AM
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!
Posted by: Tom | Apr 7, 2008 10:40:16 AM
Fortunately, there is a very simple filter you could apply.
If she starts with "You know", the rest will include at least a gaffe, a misspeak or a lie.
Posted by: Frank | Apr 7, 2008 10:36:44 AM
Sorry the Clinton foundation has distributed half of what they raised... (but the NYTimes reports that was done after Sen Clinton announced her candidacy)...
Still enormous amount of questions out of this...
and for all those who think the press is jumping on the Clintons... think about all the questions and issues with the Clintons and look at how only a few of them get a couple of days mention...
I said it months ago... the Clintons have lists and it seems the only reason most of the time people think they have been vetted is because each scandal usually ends up with another one coming out before the last one was vetted...
Who has this many questions and scandals and gaffs... ...nobody...besides maybe GW, Cheney and gang...but all of them put together.
Posted by: dl | Apr 7, 2008 10:22:19 AM
So whats the big deal about something so small? Oh i forgot, its about Hillary. Dont look now but Obamas Having terrorist over to his house tonight for dinner. Whats that you say? oh never mind. Lets get back to Hillary not remembering what date that women could vote in Montana, thats way more important! Do i see a trend here, INDEED!
Posted by: CHARLIESBABI | Apr 7, 2008 10:08:25 AM
Hillary does not have anything left to lose, other than her party, so she's just saying whatever feels good at the time.
The facts don't really matter if they are incovenient with your current campaign meme.
Shorter Hillary: If it sounds good, say it.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Apr 7, 2008 10:01:30 AM
Combine this lack of knowledge of suffragette history with the extra points for hair and makeup statement - NO self-respecting, independent woman takes Hillary seriously.
I've worked a lifetime to become a person who has earned her reputation and place in life - I'm not going to elect Bill Clinton's arm candy to the Presidency.
Posted by: Sara | Apr 7, 2008 9:44:38 AM
The blitz of anti-Hillary reporting continues and never even a mention of Obama except in passing admiration.
Vote No on Media Fawning. Vote No on Obama!
Posted by: hopesprings52 | Apr 7, 2008 9:39:02 AM
This is a lot of effort for a non-story. Now the media is a "Clinton Lies!" frenzy. Why is she held to a much higher level of veracity than both Obama and McCain? Is it because "boys will be boys"? For every one of these "lies" you could come up with an equal example (and more) for both Obama and McCain. Sadly, the media seems more interested in piling on Clinton.
Posted by: Mara R | Apr 7, 2008 9:38:33 AM
Sad but true, Hillary is already low on electability because she is woman. See the results of a recent poll by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN and Essence magazine: 76% of Americans think that our country is ready for black President, against the 63% who think it is ready for a woman President.
What percentage would think that an untrustworthy woman who stood by repeatedly cheating husband is ready for the job?
Posted by: Kira | Apr 7, 2008 9:30:40 AM
If they stay in the race, the Clinton team should do some personnel shuffling. This should have been a 1 minute Google fact check. They need to sharpen up.
Posted by: higherpurpose | Apr 7, 2008 9:23:26 AM
There goes the last role Hillary tried to play with some conviction. Millions of American women have come to see her campaign as the literal embodiment of common sense feminism.
"Now Clinton's methodical, dogged history of work for the Democratic Party is treated just like the methodical, dogged histories of so many women in the workplace," wrote columnist Marie Cocco. "She must step aside to take the smaller office, with the lesser title and the lower pay to make room for the younger guy with the thinner resume."
That's how many of Hillary's supporters feel; just read all those women's comments on her site's blog. In the same column, Cocco concedes, "Maybe it is true that Clinton has no realistic way to win the nomination."
So, that's quite a concession! That is, if you consider the presidency as an instrument for legislation and policy change, rather than a vehicle for Hillary Clinton's self-actualization and feminist self-indulgence.
Posted by: geraldine | Apr 7, 2008 9:21:38 AM
Hey Jake
Is like all the rest of the media with the obama campaign points:
Hillary is liar lets exploit that angle now.
And all the media goes along with that obama lies everyday about something an all you do is clean it up as what obama really meant(worm). Instead of calling it lies.
obama lied about not taking lobbyist money he made an ad claiming it. LIES
obama lied about only do 5 hours for rezko. LIES now says he still friends after 17 years
obama lied about never hearing that crazy man in church when everyone was going crazy congratulating him and he didnt know. LIES
obama lied about Kennedy family helping his father come to America. LIES
obama lied about his mother and father meeting because of Selma, Alabama. LIES
Make a blog point about those things for a change.
Posted by: toby | Apr 7, 2008 8:59:35 AM
"a handsome and vigorous woman, with a wealth of red hair"...
Susan Sarandon for President!
There are SO many women in the USA that would make great Presidents.
Hillary is just not one of them. She's Bill's wife, and that's why she is this race.
Posted by: karen | Apr 7, 2008 8:52:35 AM
Hillary didn't even pass her DC bar exam. Hillary is where she is because of her husband.
There are many women out there who would make fine presidents. These women made it on their own unlike Hillary.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 7, 2008 8:48:51 AM
See, Hillary will do everything just to win, even twisting history to her advantage, if this thing goes on and on no one will believe her in the future, this lady is a nuts.
Posted by: alexis compton | Apr 7, 2008 8:42:55 AM
Hillary teams needs to do a better job of researching facts. If she gets the nomination, she would not do well against McCain with this sloppy team.
They need to vet the personal stories, double check facts and do basic research well. Hillary makes it easy for the press to find fault with her statements.
Posted by: Michaele | Apr 7, 2008 8:41:54 AM
I WAS already highly disappointed in Hillary Clinton, and her lack of knowledge of suffragette history only confirms that profound disappointment.
Clinton only has the superficial knowledge of American history that her text, book and speech writers provided her with over the years. In her lousy campaign team she clearly has some unknowledgeable speech writers as well.
At the end of this campaign I hope a lot of women and other Americans will finally have learned how mediocre she really is behind that facade of White House experience and glamorous fighting for the poor.
Posted by: Greta | Apr 7, 2008 8:32:58 AM
Post a comment