Archives About Staff BagNews is dedicated to visual politics, media literacy and the analysis of news images.
August 3, 2004

Are Right-Wingers Shoving The Women’s Vote? — Part 1


Even though Maureen Dowd is no fan, it appears that reaction to Teresa Heinz-Kerry is cutting both ways. Although her outspoken nature turns a lot of people off, she also seems to be developing a following among women voters–particularly in reaction to criticism of her.

If you haven’t seen the video clip of her encounter with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter Colin McNickle, you can view it here. It’s clear that McNickle misquoted Heinz-Kerry, and then confronted her for saying something she never said. You can question her for getting in his face, but you can just as easily credit her for taking the kind of aggressive stance that is standard operating procedure for conservatives.

Beyond the obvious, though, there is apparently more to the story. It seems the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Mr. McNickle have been on Teresa’s case for more than ten years. According to a background piece on Alternet, the paper is extremely right wing, and has pursued the Heinz Endowment nearly to the point of harassment. When you consider the background, it looks more like the reporter intended to bait the strong-willed Heinz-Kerry.

To view the video, see the Real Player link to the right of the article at, here.

(link source:currenteventsmonitor)

  • sedna

    I and my siblings grew up on long island in NY, since then I moved to oregon and my sister lives in the pittsburgh area, and i have noticed a definate change in her political leanings over these 20 years, now I understand everything. I will forward this to her immediatly, maybe something will sink in.

  • Dan

    I just viewed the video. She gets upset for no good reason. She did mention “un-American” behavior, and he’s asking her to clarify. No reason to get upset over that.

  • kid charlemagne

    Why do you say he misquoted her? She said “un-American,” he asked her what she meant by “un-American” and she went ape-shit. She was clearly in the wrong, and aggressively so. You are either being disingenuous or dishonest.

  • Michael Shaw

    It might sound trivial, but she said “un-American traits,” not “Un-American activities,” which is what the reporter accused her of saying, and which is a phrase that resonates, as a reference, back to the McCarthy hearings.
    If you read the Alternet background artilce, you will also see the history between Heinz-Kerry and this reporter (and his paper). In that context, it’s easier to see that he was baiting her by putting (loaded) phrases in her mouth. It’s not difficult to see given the timing (eve of the convention) and the reporters familiarity with her sensitivities and temperment.

  • dave

    So, instead of turning into a witch, why didn’t she say “Actually, sir… I said ‘traits’, not ‘activities’, but what I meant by that was…”
    She wasn’t running from some little technical detail of what he said. She was in a full panic because she realized that someone was going to (heaven forbid) report what she said.

  • Michael

    Exactly, Dave. Anyone who tries to spin on the difference between un-American traits vs. activities is utterly foolish.

  • Michael

    What is more, she specifically denied using the term un-American. No, she didn’t deny saying un-American TRAITS. She denied each word INDIVIDUALLY.

Refresh Archives

Random Notes