Hillary: still lying, still despicable, still losing

[ProSense]

Hoosier Responsible?

Clinton Decries China's Acquisition of Indiana Company -- Ignoring Her Husband's Role in the Sale

By JAKE TAPPER
Apr. 30, 2008

<...>

"We went to Valparaiso," Clinton told voters in Princeton, Ind., last night, "where there used to be a plant called Magnequench that made the magnets that helped to guide the precision-guided missiles, the so-called smart bombs. You've seen those — they take off, they go down the chimney, they were incredibly sophisticated and these magnets, you know — not the kind you put on the refrigerator, like we all do — but these really sophisticated magnets were instrumental making that happen."

Clinton continued, saying, "Well, a Chinese company bought Magnequench and then they decided that they were going to move the whole company from Indiana to China. Now the president of the United States has the authority to veto that kind of a move, but Senator (Evan) Bayh begged the Bush administration not to export it — it was going to lose jobs but it was also going to lose the know-how, the technical sophistication that created those magnets. President Bush and his administration wouldn't, basically wouldn't even give Evan Bayh the time of day. Those jobs left, and along with them went the savvy to make the magnets."

What Clinton doesn't tell voters is that Magnequench was originally sold to Chinese interests during her husband's administration, which okayed the move despite concerns about national security and eventual job loss. Experts say the Chinese acquired the "technical sophistication" that created the magnets long before George W. Bush took office.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind,, Clinton's top surrogate in the state, often joins her on the stump in bashing the president for allowing Magnequench to move abroad. What Bayh doesn't tell voters these days is that he has blamed the company's moving on a 1995 decision made by Clinton's husband's administration.

Andy Albers, a former vice president of Magnequench, said he received a phone call from Clinton's campaign to go over key details of Clinton's Valparaiso event before it happened on April 12.

"I told them all the truth, but it didn't go anywhere," Albers told ABC News. "Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton are living in some false reality here, making all these false accusations."

more

Videos:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com">Hillary's Bosnia lies

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/85359/24244/36/488126">NAFTA lies

Carl Bernstein

The Question of Hillary Clinton's Guilt-By-Association Tactics

Posted May 2, 2008 | 09:22 PM (EST)

For several weeks, the Clinton campaign has been distributing literature and disseminating incendiary notions -- which figured significantly in Pennsylvania, and are now central to the candidate's message in Indiana and North Carolina -- assailing Barack Obama for his association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, the radical, violent organization responsible for bombing several government buildings in the early 1970s.

In their debate in Philadelphia, after moderator George Stephanoplous had raised the question of Obama's relationship with Ayers, Hillary Clinton elaborated on the subject, seeking to add to its significance:

<...>

Whether this is 21st century McCarthyism--as argued by several important commentators not publicly allied with Obama -- among them Stanley Fish in the New York Times (who has written several admiring columns about her candidacy) and Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker -- is a matter readers will have to decide.

Whatever name it is called, Hillary Clinton, perhaps better than any contemporary political figure of our time, knows the insidious nature of this kind of guilt by association, for she (like Bill Clinton) has been a victim of it herself over a political lifetime.

Precisely because she knows the destructive power of such assertions and how unfair they can be, she has sought for a quarter-century to hide and minimize her own activities, associations, student fascination, and personal history with the radical Left. Those associations -- logical, explicable, and (her acolytes have always maintained) even character-building in the context of the times -- are far more extensive than any radical past that has come to be known about Barack Obama.

Which raises the question: Is the Clinton campaign's emphasis on the Ayers-Obama connection significantly different or less spurious than the familiar (McCarthyite?) smears against Hillary, particularly those promulgated and disseminated by the forces she labeled "the vast right-wing conspiracy" in the 1990s?

<...>

Which, of course, no more raises the question "Is Hillary Clinton a Stalinist?," or a communist sympathizer, than "Is Barack Obama a Weatherman?" or a weatherman sympathizer, because of his association with Bill Ayers.

Aside from the candidate herself, her prime-most abettor in pushing the Bill Ayers-Weatherman-Obama line is, inevitably, Sidney Blumenthal, who has also been distributing many other questionable allegations about Obama he has plucked from and disseminated to, at times, of all places--organs of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

As in the Clinton White House, where he was the archivist of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's plots, Blumenthal is no independent operator. He maintains an ongoing personal and strategic dialogue with his patrons, Hillary and Bill Clinton.

more

A segment of the Democratic Party turns out to be no better than the most despicable Republicans. I don't care how long RFK Jr. has known Hillary. I could care less that seven former DNC chairs, including Terry McAwful, believe that Hillary can beat McCain. Her challenge was to run a positive campaign and come out the winner over Obama. In that, she failed miserably and exposed herself as someone who should not be a leader in the Democratic Party.

Case in point is the recent revelation that Sidney Blumenthal has been sending e-mail containing RW smears against Obama. To understand how despicable this is, here is Joe Conason mounting a lame defense of Blumenthal:

Aside from the fact that I considered Blumenthal's e-mails to be private communications from a friend, I never thought it newsworthy that he sent out material supporting his view of Obama as an untested candidate with vulnerabilities in his background. He didn't have to agree with what the right-wing media was saying in order to think those potential problems were worthy of attention.Whether that is a legitimate argument -- and how far to go in making it -- can be debated. It is certainly an argument that the Obama campaign and its supporters have used to warn against the polarizing Clintons on many occasions.

Glancing over the assortment of people on Sid's list, some of whom are well known, it should be clear that none of them was likely to credit or repeat the scurrilous nonsense spread by Accuracy in Media, to take one of Dreier's examples. Nobody on that list would believe that Obama shares the political views of an alleged communist whom he knew as a child -- or for that matter that he approves of the Weather Underground bombings carried out by Bill Ayers, which took place when the Democratic front-runner was 8 years old.

<...>

Occasionally some of Blumenthal's friends expressed objections to the items he sent out, and I sometimes replied to him with a mocking jab myself. But those were all private exchanges. I reject the idea that I am obliged to report on my conversations, whether electronic or verbal, with a campaign aide, even on the most controversial matters.

When the Clinton campaign distributed stories from discredited right-wing publications to attack an Obama advisor in March, I wrote a column noting that it had crossed a line and that Clinton herself was coming perilously close to imitating her old enemies. But in that case, her campaign aides were openly endorsing nasty, inaccurate attacks on Gen. Merrill McPeak in the American Spectator and World Net Daily. As I said then, I believe the excesses of nitpicking negative campaigning have diminished both candidates, but especially Hillary Clinton. (I doubt Sid liked that column much -- or many of the columns I've written about this campaign and his candidate, for that matter. But he still sends me clips, links and polls, many of them quite useful to anybody covering this campaign.)

link

Memo to Old Guard Party Hacks

May.02, 2008 in Election 2008

In response to your memo of 5/2/2008:

Hillary Clinton is not running against John McCain today. She is running against Barack Obama, for the nomination for President so that one or the other of them can then run against John McCain.

Your argument is a lemon. Indiana and North Carolina don’t need any lemons. They need facts.

edited typos

[speedoo]

1. K&R, and bookmarked.

Great post.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Team Obama at DU: Still hate-obsessed, still juvenile, still cult-like

I can feel the Hope and Change!

--p!

[ProSense]

3. Care to counter the facts in the OP? n/t

[JimGinPA]

4. Facts! They Don't Need No Stinkin' Facts!

:rofl:


K&R

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Just emoticons, right?

I hope Mr. Rofl enjoys his visit. And he has so many posts to visit today!

--p!

[Moochy]

11. Better a Rofler than a Waffler!

:evilgrin:

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Care to put some facts in, in the first place?

Punditry from the shills at the Huffington Post hardly qualifies as "facts".

They're opinion pieces from character assassins who say what Madame H. likes to hear.

--p!

[ProSense]

9. Did Hillary tell the truth about Bosnia? Did Sidney Blumenthal send e-mail with RW screeds? Denial

is not a good response either.

[1776Forever]

5. Truth hurts doesn't it - What is not FACT in the post?

“I guess truth can hurt you worse in an election than about anything that can happen to you.”

Will Rogers quotes

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Facts? You mean, like this cogent analysis?

Memo to Old Guard Party Hacks
May.02, 2008 in Election 2008

In response to your memo of 5/2/2008:

Hillary Clinton is not running against John McCain today. She is running against Barack Obama, for the nomination for President so that one or the other of them can then run against John McCain.

Your argument is a lemon. Indiana and North Carolina don’t need any lemons. They need facts.

It's a junior-high level wisecrack posted on a blog with a picture of a lemon. That's what you and ProSense call a "fact".

--p!

[ProSense]

10. Do you know the difference between analysis and opinion? Again, did Hillary lie about Bosnia?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. She Gllded The Lily...I Guess If You Want To Hang Her She "Lied"

She's not the first politician to gild the lily....

[ProSense]

14. Sorry, she is a habitual lily gilder. Bosnia, NAFTA, SCHIP, FMLA, Pardons, IN plant closing, etc.

I don't buy the "they all do it" argument for Hillary's lies, and I certainly don't buy it for her campaign tactics.

[Moochy]

12. Team Clinton: Losing In Every Measureable Way

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackORoses]

21. still Winning!!

[stillcool]

22. Indiana doesn't "mis-remember"...

I read some interesting LTTE's in one of the Indiana newspapers. Funny how you put Clinton's lies on Obama "supporters". Is that your auto-response whenever Clinton gets caught in her lying, cheating ways?

[True_Blue]

26. They all must be really young

This is probably their first campaign.

[ProSense]

28. Some people are trying to equate denial and willful ignorance with wisdom. n/t

[otohara]

27. How is Posting a Story by Jake Tapper

hate-obsessed, juvenile, cult-like

[ProSense]

32. Just saying it makes it real. n/t

[Skip Intro]

29. Amen. nt

[stillcool]

30. Meanwhile....

AG: Recent Robo-Calls On Voting Info. Are Illegal
Wednesday, Apr 30, 2008 - 10:00 PM Updated: 11:18 PM

By Steve Sbraccia
General Assignment Reporter
WNCN-TV

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Thousands of North Carolinians have received automated phone calls in the last few days that state officials said broke the law

As the complaints began to pile up, those cataloging them began to notice a pattern where certain groups seemed to be targeted.The situation was brought to the attention of Attorney General Roy Cooper’s office. He said those automated phone calls are illegal.

“They don't identify the group sponsoring the call, nor do they give the recipient info as to who they need to contact to stop the calls from coming,” said Cooper.
---------------------------------------

“A lot of the complaints came from African-American voters,” said Chris Kromm of the Institute for Southern Studies. “When ee heard a lot of the complaints were coming from African-Americans, that really raised a red flag for us.”

Kromm also said the institute's research indicates the Women's Voice group has a number of interesting connections to Bill Clinton.

“They claim they're a non-profit, non partisan organization. But, its president is a recent donor to Hill-Pac, a big Hillary funding group. The executive director worked for Bill Clinton in his ‘92 campaign and the lawyer for the organization is the lawyer who defended Clinton during the impeachment crisis in
the 90's,” said Kromm

FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE:
D.C. nonprofit aimed at women voters behind deceptive N.C. robo-calls
By Chris Kromm
Facing South

The D.C.-based nonprofit, led by well-connected Washington operatives, claims in a press release they sent to Facing South that the North Carolina calls are part of a 24-state effort targeted at a list of 3 million voters, especially unmarried women. The robo-calls, which never mention Women's Voices, are followed by mailings that include information on how to register to vote. They plan to mail some 276,000 packets in North Carolina alone.

But since last November, in at least 11 states nationwide, Women's Voices -- sometimes working through its Voter Participation Center project -- has developed a checkered reputation, drawing rebukes from leading election officials and complaints from thousands of would-be voters as a result of their secretive tactics, deceptive mailings and calls, and penchant for skirting or violating the law. For example:

* In Arizona last November, election officials were "inundated with complaints" after Women's Voices sent a mailing erroneously claiming that recipients were "required" to mail back an enclosed voter registration form. Many who received the mailing were already registered; the mailing also gave the wrong registration date. Secretary of State Jan Brewer denounced the group's tactics as "misleading and deceptive." A similar mailing in Colorado that month " fire and caused confusion," according to a state press release.

* In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release : "One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters,"
sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing "hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance" to actually not be.

* Michigan officials ended up "fielding tons of calls from confused voters" after Women's Voices did a February mailing to "380,000 unmarried women" -- including numerous deceased voters and even more that were already registered. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voices "seemed confused by the confusion," the Lansing
State Journal reported.

* A 1.5 million-piece Women's Voices mailing in Florida falsely stated: "To comply with state voting requirements, please return the enclosed application." Pasco County's elections supervisor called it "disingenuous"; another said it created "a lot of unnecessary panic on behalf of the voters," reported local newspapers. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voice said, "I'm sorry to hear that."

* By March, Women's Voices was backing off the erroneous "registration is required" language, but there were still problems. For example, a mailing in Arkansas allowed that "registering to vote is voluntary," but a clerk in Washington County reported that "the majority sent back to the county come from registered voters, causing needless labor for office employees."

Problems with the group's tactics have also been documented in Louisiana, Kentucky and Ohio.In each state, the Women's Voices campaigns have brought the same news and the same themes, again and again: Deceptive claims and misrepresentations of the law -- sometimes even breaking the law. Wildly inaccurate mailing lists, supposedly aimed at "unregistered single women," but in reality reaching many registered voters as well as families, deceased persons and pets. Tactics that confuse voters and potentially disenfranchise them.

For such a sophisticated and well-funded operation, which counts among its ranks some of the country's most seasoned political operatives, such missteps are peculiar, as is the surprise expressed by Women's Voices staff after each controversy.

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/04/facing-south-exclusive-dc-nonprofit.asp

[madrchsod]

39. ya that `s me-

--still hate-obsessed, still juvenile, still cult-like...."burning down the house"!

[Triana]

47. Preferring TRUTH to pretentious LIES does not hatred make. n/t

[The Doctor.]

51. When 'your' candidate stops using dirty tactics, people will stop pointing it out.

It really is that simple.

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

:thumbsup:

[liberaldem4ever]

17. Great post! K&R

Thanks ProSense :hi:

[L0oniX]

18. K&R

[K Gardner]

19. K&R.. unfortunately, too much truth. Not enough tabloid .

[hiphopnation]

20. k&r

:kick:

[dana_b]

23. thank you Prosense.

[dana_b]

24. delete - double post

[WillyT]

25. And... From David Sirota

<snip>

On Monday, I wrote about Hillary Clinton airing an ad decrying the closure of a defense manufacturing factory that her husband, Bill Clinton, helped close by approving the sale of the company to a Chinese state-owned firm. Now, ABC News is running with the story, and uncovers some more ugly details. The Clinton campaign has responded not by fessing up, but by putting out more dishonest deceptions.

From Jake Tapper:

"A memo prepared for Bayh by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service earlier this year stated that the Clinton administration could have objected to the sale under CFIUS, but it did not...In 2000, also during Bill Clinton's presidency, Magnequench purchased from UGIMAG the factory in Valparaiso that manufactured the Neo magnets. President Clinton's administration took no steps to stop the purchases in 2000, either."

The sale was a pretty serious national security issue, not so much because the technology was sensitive, but because the sale means our military has to rely on foreign companies for critical weaponry. Here's Tapper:

The two Chinese companies were headed by the husbands of the first and second daughters of then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. One of those daughters was at that time "vice minister of China's State Science and Technology Commission, whose responsibilities included acquiring military technologies by whatever means necessary," according to David Cay Johnston in Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Corporations Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You With the Bill).

"Complaints about the sale of Magnequench were made to the U.S. government because of the military applications for the magnets," Johnston reports. "Still, the Clinton administration, an ardent proponent of globalization, approved the sale."

Around that time, Shingleton says, "there was talk about the national security issue and the loss of jobs because they were leaving. Some of the higher-wage jobs left immediately . I knew personally some people who were managers and who lost their jobs."

Not surprisingly, the Clinton campaign is compounding its deception with more deception as it tries to explain away this latest controversy. McClatchy today quotes Clinton spokesman Jonathan Swain claiming that "In 1995, when this group bought Magnequench, there were assurances made that production would stay in the United States." But as ABC recounts, the Congressional Research Service reports that the state-owned Chinese company that Clinton allowed to purchase Magnequench "promised to keep those Anderson, Ind., jobs in the U.S. only until 2005."

This is about as pristine an example of Clintonian deception and parsing as you are going to find. First comes the pander - an ad that conveys that signature Clinton bite-the-bottom-lip, feel-your-pain message of empathy and outrage. Then comes the revelation that the whole thing Clinton supposedly feels bad about was originally brought about by the Clinton administration, which she endlessly touts. And finally there is the lying - pretending that there were "assurances" that what happened wouldn't happen, when in fact those assurances were not what's being claimed.

With both Indiana and North Carolina being among the two worst-hit states by the Clinton-backed NAFTA/PNTR policies that this Magnequench controversy epitomizes, you would think this would make a perfect issue for Barack Obama to start talking about.

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/abc-digs-into-clinton-tra_b_99473.html

:shrug:

[ProSense]

31. Yup, her campaign responds to lies with more lies. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. But her supporters lie to themselves

about Math, about her Iraq vote, delegates, caucuses,
Bosnia, Obliteration, the Kyle Lieberman vote, Texas,
and so many other things that they will see the lipstick
and not the pig.

[Ichingcarpenter]

40. Orwell said about lying:

George Orwell said,

"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue,
and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts

so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process
for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps
up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

[ProSense]

43. Perfect! n/t

[anticat]

34. Nonsense

[kid a]

42. denial

[jonestonesusa]

35. Great post again - I wonder if HC supporters appreciate dialogue

given that not one such supporter has stepped up and joined in a reasoned argument about any of these news and opinion articles.

With all the accusations that Obama supporters are rabid partisans, I would love to see some discussion of the substantive points by supporters of all candidates. If it's an informed and respectful dialogue we all want, let's have it - now!

One topic well worth discussion is the relationship with China - both in terms of trade and national security. Personally, I was quite surprised in the 1990s to see the rapid growth of this trade relationship. In my view, the relationship grew to such proportions without much of a public discussion of changes in the trade policy. I remember the discussion of the change to China having most favored nation status, but at the time I didn't imagine how much the volume of trade would go up so quickly, and I also didn't imagine that the conflicts of interest and influence peddling would be so prevalent behind the scenes. How naive I was!

And now, since we have an economy built on this new trading relationship, on China servicing our debt, and on the importation of key products so that companies save money on the labor side, it is even more important to have this discussion, especially when it comes to challenging all Democrats - INCLUDING OBAMA, on their trade policies. As the emerging economies of China and India as well as the EU compete for shrinking oil supplies, it's critical to act thoughtfully on our transportation and energy policies.

Without a push from the people, unified not just around candidates but around these issues, we will get inaction. I support Obama, but I'm no longer naive enough to believe that significant change happens on these issues without the people leading. At least Obama is willing to admit this, which is one reason why I support him.

[GoldieAZ49]

36. Her "losing" is why Obama followers are at a fever pitch whining about his press coverage

poor bama bandwagon lost 3 wheels

[ProSense]

37. Stephanopoulos' conflict of interest even worse than you thought

Stephanopoulos' conflict of interest even worse than you thought:

At the time of the sale, George Stephanopoulos was a Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy. How can George claim to be objective on this when he interviews her on Sunday? To reveal her deception of blaming this on Bush, George'd have to implicate HIMSELF.

[Beacool]

38. Obama: still an arrogant empty suit.

Your point?

:shrug:

[VotesForWomen]

54. I'd say that he was an empty suit, except that he's full of hot air. :-)

[Arugula Latte]

41. Yep, yep and yep.

:kick:

[kid a]

44. The reasonable, sensible, cognizant SDs see this and will stay with and continue to support Obama.

K & R

[kwenu]

45. Why is she still in the race? She is a complete embarrassment.

[madrchsod]

46. stop making sense.......

[StevieM]

48. Actually, they haven't certified Obama's Guam victory. There are 500 "spoiled" ballots. We'll see

of he pulls a Bush in Florida on us. I wouldn't put it past him.

Steve

[bridgit]

49. Yeah! The dumb fucking bitch! Who does she think she is?

[VotesForWomen]

55. gee, i wonder what you call Obama behind his back. nt

[bridgit]

60. Nice try, but unless you've been lurking for years now this is the standard...

Months back DU wanted Pelosi' head on a pike...I disagree with all of it. I disagree with calling DUer's liars. I disagree with race baiting as you have just done to me. Maybe you have not seen the vitriol; maybe you are yourself a strident contributor, but it has not been pretty for quite some time around here.

All the best & good luck with those aspersions

[grantcart]

50. I always feel like I am going to have to take a test after your posts

k and r

[invictus]

52. K & R

[VotesForWomen]

53. sounds like Bush made the decision to move the plant, by lying O-nuts blame it on Hillary.

[Perry Logan]

56. The Obamites don't know the truth from a lie.

[thevoiceofreason]

57. Damn those tricky facts

[ProSense]

58. Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth on Wright

Hillary On Wright: "We Should Move On"

By Greg Sargent - May 4, 2008, 9:56AM

"We should move on."

That's what Hillary just said during the Indiana town hall when asked by a voter whether the Wright controversy should remain an issue in the campaign.

Then, pressed by George Stephanopoulos as to whether she was saying Wright shouldn't e part of the campaign at all anymore, Hillary said: "People talk about it. there's no doubt that people talk about it," adding that people would elect a president based on the solutions he or she is offering.

A week or so ago, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin also said that we should "move on" from Wright, but Hillary subsequently hit Wright in harsh terms on Fox News.

The Clinton campaign message on Wright has proceeded on two tracks: High-mindedly saying that he shouldn't be an issue in the campaign while simultaneously saying that he is something that voters care about.

The latter, of course helps ensure that he remain an issue.

[ProSense]

59. Hillary: Stephanopoulos And I Were In Anti-NAFTA Camp

Hillary: Stephanopoulos And I Were In Anti-NAFTA Camp

By Greg Sargent - May 4, 2008, 9:30AM

During the Indiana town-hall meeting on ABC, Hillary stated flatly that she and George Stephanopoulos, who worked in the Clinton White House during Bill's first term, were both in the anti-NAFTA camp.

"George and I were actually against NAFTA," Hillary said. She then claimed that she and George had expressed opposition to NAFTA in private meetings.

Stephanopoulos didn't dispute any of this.

Of course, Steph may well have felt that contradicting her on this point would have made news in a way he doesn't want to in his new journalist/pundit role. Still, an interesting moment.

Still lying.

[ProSense]

61. Hillary's disingenuous mailer attacks Obama on guns, "bitter" comment

Hillary Drops New Indiana Mailer Attacking Obama On Guns, "Bitter" Comments

By Greg Sargent - May 4, 2008, 12:10PM

I've just obtained a new mailer that the Hillary campaign has dropped in Indiana that attacks Obama for inconsistency on the Second Amendment -- and also reminds voters of the comments Obama made about small town America that created problems for him in the run-up to Pennsylvania.

(Image)

The mailer says:

And just this month, Barack Obama accused people in rural places and small towns of being "bitter" people who "cling to guns."

Note that the mailer says Obama "accused" folks of this. Here's what Obama said last month:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The Hillary mailer, in selectively quoting from this, omitted all of Obama's references to people's economic circumstances, leaving the misleading impression that all Obama did was "accuse" rural and small-town Americans of being "bitter" people who "cling to guns."

more

Obama's position on guns is pretty clear, but what is Hillary's position when she isn't pandering:

"To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law."

Roll Call

Published on Friday, June 18, 2006] by Reuters

Senate Votes to Bar Emergency Gun Confiscation

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned guns during an emergency like last year's Hurricane Katrina, marking another victory for the gun lobby.

By a vote of 84-16, the Senate embraced an amendment by Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. He attached his measure to a domestic security spending bill for the fiscal year starting October 1 that the Senate is expected to pass soon.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed its version of the spending bill and negotiators will have to decide whether to keep the gun provision. The House is usually sympathetic to gun owners.



TA man carries a shotgun as he surveys damage to his neighborhood
in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Metairie, outside New Orleans
September 5, 2005. The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to prohibit the
confiscation of legally owned guns during an emergency like last year's
Hurricane Katrina, marking another victory for the gun lobby.
REUTERS/Lee Celano

Citing the constitutional right to bear arms, Vitter said that during an emergency people should be allowed to hold onto "legally possessed firearms to defend your life, your property" at a time when telephone lines and cell phones probably are not operating and victims "can't reach out to law enforcement authorities."

more

[Duke Newcombe]

62. Damn, ProSense! Two fact filled posts in a day?

The more you post, the more I like you. Well done, again.

Duke

[ProSense]

63. The difference between spin and lying, and Hillary's claims about IN

Spin, as we usually refer to it, is trying to take facts and present them in a way that is good for one or another candidate. We see this most often when it comes to setting expectations. Candidates try to spin things to set expectations in a given election one way, so that when they meet or break expectations the media writes positive stories about said candidate having "momentum."

Lying, by contrast, is either saying things contrary to the facts, or pretending the facts just don't exist. We saw this most often in the Bush administration's lead-up to the Iraq War, and more recently, in Hillary Clinton pretending that she never supported NAFTA, when, in fact, a decade of public speeches shows she did. Now, Clinton is doing something fairly new: spinning AND lying - all at the same time.

Here's what ABC News reports that Clinton is now saying:

"We came from so far behind in Indiana. We're still the underdog."

Clinton is trying to set expectations in advance of Tuesday's Indiana primary, with the goal of making it seem as if a victory in Indiana would be "unexpected" and proof that she has "momentum." The spinning part - the expectations part - is fine, and no surprise. That's what candidates do, and that's part of politics. What's not fine is the dishonest basis of the storyline. Clinton has been ahead in Indiana from the beginning - and in, fact, has been ahead in the majority of Democratic primary polls done in the Hoosier state.

As Real Clear Politics shows, Clinton has been ahead or tied with Barack Obama in 12 out of 18 Indiana primary polls. In fact, she's never been behind by more than 5 points - basically the margin of error in these polls. Put another way, Clinton has been either ahead or right on the cusp of the margin of error in 100% of the polling done in Indiana.

link