Lee Whitnum says "Greenwich Time Blunders..."

Add the local print media to the list of those Whitnum attacks via her website.

First Jim Himes, then those of us who blog, and now the Greenwich Time's Neil Vigdor. (Hey Mr. Vigdor, welcome to the club.)

Frankly, if I were Lee Whitnum I'd stop and consider just how much of a free pass the press has given her in terms of what's not been written about the state of her campaign and resume. How many Dems will enter the voting booth a week from Tuesday, informed of most of this? (you know, that Lee's essentially unemployed, that she paid over $5000 to obtain the 2500 signatures needed to make the ballot, that she's raised less than $500 cycle-to-date, that she hasn't a campaign office, and that it took Republicans to throw her only fundraiser? And oh yeah, that instead of having campaign events of her own, she stalked Jim Himes on his district tour!)

Anyway, copied directly from LeeWhitnum2008's Media and Editorials page: (Subject to change!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESS BLUNDERS:

"Every reporter has gotten it wrong.

Greenwich Time, August 3, 2008: Neil Vigdor did the worst damage. Regarding whether we should attack Iran if they attack Israel. Of COURSE - if it is legitimate. I do not believe in abandoning an ally or avoid defending an ally to appease Muslim fundamentalists. Neil wrote: "Whitnum has criticized that stance saying the U.S. Needs to look after itself and avoid inflaming Muslim extremists." I never said ANYTHING like that. Read my Israel link. I'm talking about not believing the propaganda of a country that may have an agenda (ready my Israel link - have we forgotten Iraq). My complaint was that we have politicians like Himes, who believe spin without believing our own National Security Estimate of 16 spy organization that said Iran had abandoned his nuclear weapon program. Vigdor missed the point.

Even the few interviews I've had with mainstream press have been inaccurate - something I allegedly said five years ago should not be incorporated in a current article as if it were stated yesterday. They do it for sensationalism.

If you want to know the truth please send me an email and ask me. Seriously consider whether you should support a wimpy candidate like Himes, who hires anonymous bloggers to malign a member of his own party."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, this semi-anonymous blogger is still waiting on that check which Lee Whitnum says Jim Himes promised.

P.S. here is today's article which caused Lee's latest blow-up: "Congressional candidates offer varying views on issues".