Fact-Checking the Hillary Campaign

I don’t want to get pigeonholed as a Hillary hater. But the following just happens to be the thematically-connected material that strikes me as lies.com-significant lately:

From my hero, Mark Kleiman: Too late, the truth about NAFTAgate. Short version: score one for Hillary, as a false-to-fact smear against Obama gets cemented in the popular consciousness and the mainstream media, just in time to help her win Ohio.

From another of my heroes, Joshua Micah Marshall: Say It Ain’t So. So, is Geraldine Ferraro factually correct to argue that if he weren’t black, Barack Obama wouldn’t be where he is today? Not so much, it turns out. Or, more succinctly, as still yet another of my heroes, Adam of Mighty Forces, put it (in Geraldine Ferraro can bite my shiny metal ass):

Hey Geri: FUCK. YOU.

But the best comment on Hillary’s recent race-based campaigning comes courtesy of this video from the droll subversives of Election08 (also pointed out to me by the aforementioned Adam):

Okay. Back to work.

17 Responses to “Fact-Checking the Hillary Campaign”

  1. enkidu Says:

    Sounds like the Clinton camp is getting desperate.

    If Obama can squeeze a narrow victory out of PA, the nomination is his. Doesn’t look good from the numbers, but I like that he is staying on the high road. She is burnig her bridges with Obama supporters (tho I’d still hold my nose and vote for Hillary over McSame)

    Oh and Eliot Spitzer? at least he had the good graces to resign (unlike Vitter and other rwnj sleaze) Count out another Clinton super-delegate (and big backer, that should be worth a few votes in PA?).

  2. Craig Says:

    I wouldn’t go as far as to say that Obama wouldn’t be a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination if he was a young-ish white male charismatic political neophyte hammering a message of change. But I do believe there is a significant segment of people (specifically focused on Democrats right now, as they are the ones choosing their Democratic representative) who want to support something different because it’s….well….different. There is an allure to the notion of supporting someone who is diametrically opposite of the current Washington power structure, not just in what the person will do policy-wise, but who will also LOOK different as well. A lot of democratic voters seem to have their political tuning fork synched to the idea that they want to be behind something that represents a different look, at several levels. Even though a female president would certainly be a change in that regard as well, But that would be a landmark change in smaller font, not the bigger landmark change.

    It’s an anecdotal reference to support my thoughts, I grant you, but I remember reading an editorial from a twenty-something democratic voter who was saying that, even though he felt there was a lot of similarity in the policies of Clinton and Obama, that if Obama didn’t get the nomination the voter would feel like the political process would be a huge letdown to the point that he would be discouraged from engaging in the process. The excitement of being part of something radical would not be there. So, if this person admits, in his own mind, that there are mostly similarities between candidates in terms of their stances on the significant issues, then what is it that is the big differentiator? What makes Obama the big radical change over Clinton?

    Would his race be considered a significant part of what he represents, that attracts democratic voters and political fence-sitters toward him? I think, to be honest in assessing his appeal, it has to be more than some inconsequential factor.

  3. shcb Says:

    I Agree with you Craig, I think the same can be said about McCain as well. I think the American voters, at least the ones that are somewhat but not totally engaged in politics really want change. McCain has always liked the label “maverick” and considers himself one. The press certainly considered him one when he was a thorn in the side of their opponents, the Republicans, and have perpetuated this statement, I use “statement” for lack of a better word, I don’t want to use fact, but I don’t want o use lie either. I think the public is foolish if they think any one of the three is going to be anything but the samo samo, and if a candidate that was truly for change were available, they would reject him, but people don’t always vote rationally or anything else for that matter, we wouldn’t need credit cards if they did. Most of the American public simply doesn’t take the time to look at voting records and such. So once they have made the decision change is in order, why not go all the way and be able to tell your grand kids you voted for the first black man or the first woman president, that was one of the reasons I was going to vote for Elizabeth Dole when she ran. And with as little difference in these candidates, why not?

  4. shcb Says:

    On the Hillary is a louse subject, Rosen had something this morning on Hillary saying she was instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process, but an Irish official who shared the Nobel peace prize for his work in this area had said here involvement was primarily to accompany Bill in Air Force 1, and called her claim as “rather silly” you guys may want to look into this more and get the names and such straight, it sounds like good ammunition.

  5. NorthernLite Says:

    That video is funny!

    However, the notion that a black man with the name Barck (muslim middle-name) Obama somehow gives him an advantage running for president of the USA is even funnier.

  6. shcb Says:

    For all you libs that have been grousing about Bush “shredding the Constitution” it appears your guy Obama isn’t even going to make an attempt to uphold that sacred document at least when it comes to appointing federal and Supreme Court judges. In his own words:

    We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.

    Ed Whelan writes “So much for the judicial virtue of dispassion. So much for a craft of judging that is distinct from politics.” Those may be good qualities for congressmen, but not judges. Things that make you go hmmm.


  7. Steve Says:

    Claiming and using the power to ignore laws == shredding Constitution

    Claiming to evaluate someone’s empathy as a criteria for a judge != shredding Constitution

    additionally, not impeaching Bush == shredding Constitution

    … thread derailed?

  8. newsrack Says:

    (UPDATED) Austan Goolsbee, International Man of My

    Via jbc, Mark Kleiman feels the story has been debunked by this report — “Anatomy of a Leak: What We Know about NAFTA-Gate” by the CBC’s Neil MacDonald. One of the key passages is here:”DeMora, it turned out, did not write his summary until five d…

  9. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes Steve, you did damn well.

    Now, thanks to Steve I can redirect.

    Why is everyone so wrapped up in the Obama Hillary thing? The real race is still underway on the Republican side, with Ron Paul gaining momentum like never before. Why, he’s even got a movie now. I watched the trailer, it’s fantastic, even shcb will love it:

  10. shcb Says:

    So Steve, if you were Speaker, what specifically would your charge for impeachment be?

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    You get three f*cking guesses, shcb. Here are two clues:



  12. shcb Says:

    That is pretty compelling evidence Knarly, you got me there. A Ron Paul advertisement – impeach Bush, that makes total sense how could I be so blind. And a MM sponsored spit on the soldiers. Bush is a disgrace, hangin’s to good fer the vermin.

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    Glad to see you come around, shcb. I expected nothing less.

  14. Craig Says:

    What was this thread about again???

    It appears that people would rather throw stones at each other over the same topics, using the same points.

    No wonder political discourse in general is so counter-productive.

  15. shcb Says:


    This thread had run its short lived life, Steve brought up impeachment, sorry but I can’t let that just hang there. No one can give me a reason for impeachment and no one can give me a lie Bush told in the run up to this war. Why? Because he is a decent man doing the best job he can. You guys may not like him or what he has done, but I’m not going to let you trash him without reason. I try and stay on topic as much as possible. I will shut up for two days on this thread if that will make you happy unless someone comments on something off topic (this and your comment excluded of course). All I ask is you guys give me a lie or a reason for impeachment or shut up about it. I can understand your frustration, there are times when I am watching one of those reality cop shows and the sniper has the bad guy in his sight and the negotiator won’t let him kill the guy, I’m yelling at the television, “shoot, shoot” and my wife will calmly say, “they can’t kill the guy unless there is no other option”. I know she is right but hell man, the guy is backing up traffic.

  16. enkidu Says:

    heh – you sound like that youtube of the girl wailing on about “leave Britney alooooone!!!”

    shcb, I have pointed to research showing demonstrable lies by bush and his cabinet (to the tune of 260 lies from gwb alone) that led us into the Iraq War. You simply won’t believe any of these lies are, well, lies. Politicians lie. It is like air to them. Yet bush is jes a decent guy, some dude you’d like to have a beer with. He’d never lie! Why? You just believe it and it is so. He is possibly the worst president of the last 100 years. Too late to impeach w. But I am hoping war crimes trials will bring the worst of it into the light.

    I love that your big funny example at the end is where you scream at the TV to have someone shoot a ‘bad guy’ cuz he is ‘backing up traffic’ har har har!

    Murder and mayhem is just too much a part of rwnj ‘thinking’.

  17. shcb Says:

    so you see Craig, it has been more that two days and Knarly is the only one to have posted anything, and it wans’t about the subject matter of the thread, after a couple days and 3 or 4 posts these threads are dead and it is just a bunch of guys BSing about what ever comes to their minds until the next subject is deposited. If there is decent it will go maybe 10 or 15 comments, look at the Obama speach thread, 3 comments all “best speech ever” watch what happens when I pose a contrary view.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.