Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dear Hillary: If a mailer that is basically true "enrages" you, please avoid getting the nomination.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:20 AM
Original message
Dear Hillary: If a mailer that is basically true "enrages" you, please avoid getting the nomination.
The GOP mailers will not factually say that you supported NAFTA or that you have been described as saying that NAFTA is an economic boon. They will say that NAFTA was your idea and that, as a result, you destroyed the economies of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The GOP will not quote you from a debate when you many times indicated that paying into your health care program will be mandatory. They will call you an unhinged socialist who is hell bent on destroying America and forcing those who don't want your program to choose between mandatory health care insurance and starving to death.

If you are this "enraged" at the spinning of facts, what will you do when the fire is truly raining from the sky?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. But look at those eyes...those are the eyes meant to to meet Putin's
You can just tell that she could look him in the face and see the fear in his soul.

I really think Hillary would be a great replacement for the person now occupying the most powerful office in the World. You know--Cheney's office.

Moreover, she'd probably like the old house with the new bunker out at the Naval Observatory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. Correction: Clinton doesn't believe that Putin has a soul.
She has announced this publicly, prompting Putin to reply, "At a minimum; a head of state should have a head".

So the score at the moment appears to be Putin: 1, Clinton: 0.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/15/putin-fires-ba...
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/02/04/007.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R. Not very POTUS-like. That film will run endlessly if she's the nominee.
It's exactly what the GOP uses to fuel their agenda. She just handed the oval office to the GOP with that little piece of film.

I never thought she'd make a huge mistake like that over a non-issue.

If she's really so enraged about the mailer, why did she tranform it into a national mailer by doing a national press conference on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Not very POTUS like?
reminded me of Harry Truman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
32. Great question, jazzjunkysue!
Especially that it's true..Score Double Stupid for hilary via mark penn(who is making sure hilary's supporters get their money's worth).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. I didn't see Obama feigning outrage after the choice mailer and other that clinton sent out
Also, she has been sending mailers in Ohio...Im sure the citizen of Ohio are a bit confused by her comments considering her own actions! I wonder who they think caused those Pro-Hillary mailers to be put in their mailboxes!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hey Buzz Click - did you know that you have an immortal thread (OP)?
Hello!
There is a GD thread that you started on 12-25-07 that is still active in GD. It never goes to the archives, it seems to get stuck on page 21.
It seems to be the oddest glitch that i've seen on this site in a long time.

Anyway, peace and low stress...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. My legacy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. be proud my friend
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. "Basically true" is an interesting standard.
The most important part of the message was that Hillary would make you buy insurance, even if you could not afford it. But Hillary's plan ensures affordability as a key provision. That is, there will be no possibility of someone having to buy something they can't afford, because it will be made affordable for them.

Therefore, the mailer is "basically untrue." It's most important message is false. That makes it a lie. So shame on the ones who lied. Attacking a candidate's position in the Dem primary is fine. Lying about it in a substantial and obvious way is not.

Obama, his campaign, and his supporters can choose to feel shame about it or not. That's up to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. My point is not the degree of truthiness in the flier. It's her reaction to it.
If she goes postal over this point, what can we expect if and when she secures the nomination?

Hillary supporters are quick to point out that Barack is untested against the venom coming his way if he is the nominee. Either Hillary's outrage is completely fake, or she is incapable of handling the coming storm. Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Much better to be calm and expect reason to prevail,
as Kerry did with he Swiftboaters. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. You're going in circles now.
This was a teeny tiny twist of the truth (assuming that it isn't dead on). She will see much, much worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Lying is OK. Anger about it isn't.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 11:17 AM by gulliver
Consideration of Hillary's "anger kabuki" can only occur after you decide to gloss over the lie in the mailer. I'm questioning your decision. You should not even be able to reach the question you ask, because the matter of the lie should already end the conversation. We have a lie, not a question of style or emotional poise.

But for the sake of argument, let's talk about your exact point. The anger wasn't fake or inappropriate, so you are wrong on both counts. The anger was real, because a mass-mailed lie was perpetrated by Obama's campaign. Hillary then deliberately chose to express the anger in a way that would get the MSM to cover it, which is an appropriate move.

Your characterization of it being "postal" is your own opinion. The problem with words like "postal" is that anyone can use them, even twelve year olds--especially twelve year olds. I don't necessarily think that is what you are. But I think you think your readers are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. "... the lie in the mailer" What lie?
Go to factcheck.org. This silliness is on page one.

The health care mailer is deemed somewhat inaccurate but "not false". A lie must be the utterance of a falsehood, so that isn't it.

The NAFTA deal is "debunked" only by her claims that Newsday misquoted her and that she "secretly opposed NAFTA". Secretly? Okay, if her opposition is a well kept secret, we cannot blame Obama for not knowing it.

There was no lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazBerryBeret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. I'm gonna have to research this...
but I heard (and saw) her say that her plan would consider wage garnishing to cover the cost of the insurance...isnt' that the same as forcing you to buy it? Well, I guess that's actually buying it for you, using your own money...hmmm. I have to buy my own insurance now, for myself and my 2 little boys, it's not easy. I'm not sure I'd want her to garnish my wages if I fell behind....

I don't get what all the hub-bub is here.

and she does have to take some responsibility for NAFTA. she's claiming those 8 years in her 35 years of experience. I live in Ohio. NAFTA was not good for us. Ohio's job loss is the worst since the great depression. NAFTA happened on her watch.

Oh, and I feel no shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. From factcheck.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazBerryBeret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. got it,
thanks. so the big deal is the "quote" marks around the word boon. hmmm. but it would have quote marks, because it was a quote from Newsday. just not her quote. seems blown out of proportion.

and the healthcare thing, I did find the transcript from the George Stephanopoulis. when asked about wage garnishing she said, "we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments"
sounds like she's forcing you to buy it, although there may be some subidies involved.

thanks for the link, Buzz Click. and I'm still waiting to get one of those mailers here in Ohio!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. That's it precisely
The only complaint she has is over a newspaper that interpreted her support of NAFTA with a word she didn't like.

Here are the real facts, and they are real, not the pick and choose that factcheck does that never makes any sense.

http://thepage.time.com/saturday-obama-campaign-release...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. It provides a tax credit at the end of the year
It only ensure affordability if you're not in the position of having to worry about what affordability means to people like Krugman.

Therefore, the mailer is completely true. She has not said what her cap will be or how people are going to pay their monthly premiums, waiting for her tax credit.

Her plan sucks if you're actually one of the uninsured who has to figure out how to pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Let's go with your interpretation for a minute.
Then under Obama-care, these poor people you say would be forced to buy something they can't afford nder Hillary-care would do what? Not get health insurance? Then if they get sick they do what? Go to the emergency room? And then, if I recall, Obama said there would be fines and they might have to pay some "back premiums." Which they would pay with what?

But you are wrong. Hillary promises to make health care affordable period. My interpretation is that she means the health care will be affordable. She's not going to be so stupid as to make her "affordable" health care unaffordable. And since no one but Obama's campaign is trying to make this claim, I have to think that proves it is false. Or "strains the truth" or whatever euphemism applies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Or be in the same boat they're in now
At which point we would see we need to make more changes. If the plan was truly affordable, say $25 a month, and they chose not to buy it when they could, then they'll have to pay another $5 a month to make up an amount of back premiums. Regardless, the point is, under Obama if the plan truly is NOT affordable, people aren't going to be bankrupted during the ten years it takes for the elite to figure it out.

Do you remember that the Hope College Tax Credit was supposed to enable everybody to go to two years of collge too? Yeah, that's why I don't think the Clintons know a damn thing about living in the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tennessee Gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
7. See, you missed the point.
She was outraged that the Obama campaign "continues" to send out misleading mailers while campaigning about changing the negative politics, hopes, dreams, honesty, and unity. There is a disconnect there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conservdem Donating Member (880 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. She claimed he "attacked" her on health care. Do you honestly
beleive he did?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tennessee Gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Absolutely. One of the mailers was on health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conservdem Donating Member (880 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. You do not mean any mailer is an attack do you?
And if it was really an attack, why didn't she raise this at the last debate?

She also seems to be complaining about his big rallies. Is there something unfair about him having a big rally?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tennessee Gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. No. But they should be accurate.
She did not mention this at the last debate because she thought he had stopped sending them. She found out yesterday he had not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Oh, you mean like Hillary's mailers on Obama's position on Choice?
Puhleeeezzzzeeeee! Why are Hillbots so blind and hypocritical? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
49. Would a mailer mischaracterizing Obama's position on choice undermine a core Dem platform?
"Well, yeah... but but ... this is different. Because, well, the mailer about Obama was an obvious lie that nobody would believe, and these are believable and essentially true! Can we stick to horrible smears like telling the California Hispanic community that Obama is a Muslim? Let's leave real issues out of the equation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. On the contrary, I totally get the point. Do you really understand what is happening here?
She is livid about this flier. Some here call it unhinged -- though I don't go that far (I'll explain in a moment).

If she goes this hot over something so trivial, what will she do when the "swiftboating" begins?

Personally, I think her outrage is a big act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. She Went Ballistic Because He Pointed Out Her Positions Are Wrong
The old ladies voting for her don't need to know the truth damn it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
23. That's one mailer NO ONE is going to throw away!
That's for sure. Everyone who gets one is going to have a look.

So, thanks for the free advertising, Hillary! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Probably already up on eBay. :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemGa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
29. Are these mailers the "old" or the "new" politics?? LOL!!....nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
33. The mailing was false & misleading
But I suspect you already know that, based on the "basically true" wiggle words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Basically true does not mean false. The mailers were not false.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 06:38 PM by Buzz Clik
They were misleading, but only slightly. Welcome to politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. But not a "new kind of politics."
They were misleading, and falsley attributed quotes to Clinton that she never says. It's not a crime against humanity, but it is sort of sleazy & definitely not part of the 'new kind of politics' rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Falsely attributing quotes would mean the mailers were false. They were not.
Clinton never came out against NAFTA until Obama suggested she supported it -- and only when the primaries moved to a state devastated by NAFTA did she decide to be vocal about this. Obama quoted a Newsday article that said Hillary said it was a boon to America. Your complaint is with Newsday.

If you want a new kind of politics that includes not highlighting differences between the campaigns, then you should never have allowed Hillary to continually stump saying that Obama had no ideas, no platform. Now, she's livid about the platform he presents. Sounds like Karma to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. It was a false quote
See here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_... . 'Trade: A mailer showing a locked plant gate quotes Clinton as saying she believed NAFTA was "a boon" to the economy. Those are not her words and Obama was wrong to put quote marks around them. In fact, she's been described by a biographer as privately opposing NAFTA in the White House."

Like I said, not the worst thing ever done in politics. But it was negative, false, & unfair. Which is pretty much politics as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. So, Newsday says she said NAFTA was a boon, but secretly she felt it wasn't.
The quote wasn't false -- Hillary is simply too adept at keeping secrets. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. No
She never said that. Did you read the link? I'll cut & paste for you.

"On the front of the four-page NAFTA mailer appears a headline saying, "Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was 'a boon' to our economy." But in fact, Clinton never used the word "boon" to describe the effects of the trade agreement on the U.S. economy, and it's not clear she ever said anything like that.

The Obama mailer quotes a New York newspaper article that ran during her 2006 Senate reelection campaign. Two reporters for the Long Island daily Newsday gave brief descriptions of her stands on a number of issues, including this:

Newsday, Sept. 11, 2006: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy, but voted against the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, saying it would drive jobs offshore.

The day after the mailer surfaced, another Newsday reporter, Dan Janison, conceded that the newspaper didn't get that from Clinton or her campaign.

Newsday's Dan Janison, Feb. 14: The word <"boon"> was our characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements. ... We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy at that time.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. ... all of which is 100% consistent with what I've said to you from the beginning.
Thank you for finally coming around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
35. IT SAID "BOON" THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!!
She just said NAFTA was good for NY & America.



:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baconfoot Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. Actually, that's not the quote either and you don't put it in context. WTH? N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
40. She is vile
She is a prime example of the kind of politician John Edwards was warning us about. Willing to peddle any falsehood, owned by lobbyists, and only concerned with their own access and power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
42. heh...the republicans are sharpening their claws...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. They've sharpened their claws and their teeth. They simply need to know who to smear.
We'll be ready this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. yup, some people seem to think that the repubs are going to be afraid of hillary.
that's not the case.
they've got their attacks lined up for her just as well as obama.
it's up to us to know how to counter them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErnestoG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
43. Precisely. This is NOTHING compared to what the Right has in store for her.
She should duck out of this now if this is how she reacts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC