Log In | Register
6 Votes
8 Comments
ABC Digs Into Clinton Trade Hypocrisy - Clinton Campaign Responds With More Deception
News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Thu May 1, 2008 11:54 AM EDT
Article Source: The Huffington Postadvertisement
From Jake Tapper:
"A memo prepared for [Indiana Senator Evan] 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."
Published to:
- MaryGJ's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: ObamaExpress, ObamaVine
- Regions: none
 | Senator: Obama Has Dozens Of Secret Superdelegates Lined Up | The Huffington Post | Wed Apr 30 | 1 |
| What Will A Clinton "Victory" Feel Like? | The Huffington Post | Fri May 2 | 8 |
| Why You Shouldn't Spend Your Stimulus Check | The Huffington Post | Fri May 2 | 1 |
| 7-Year-Old Car Thief: "It's Fun To Do Bad Things" (VIDEO) | The Huffington Post | Wed Apr 30 | 1 |
| Bob Cesca: Have You Left No Sense Of Decency? | The Huffington Post | Tue Apr 29 | 2 |
- Public Discussion (8)
- ObamaExpress
- ObamaVine
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
2.1
{"commentId":1754675,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
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.
{"commentId":1754675,"threadId":"258269","contentId":"1463657","authorDomain":"marygj"}
#1 - Thu May 1, 2008 11:58 AM EDT{"commentId":1755185,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
This is dangerous territory. First, on the record, Bill is an idiot for going ahead with that deal. But you can't extrapolate Bill's decision to Hillary for the same reason that the if you get Hill, you get Bill argument is a fallacy. The campaign lying about it is surely nothing new, but definitely worth a mention. Now, unless I missed Hillary saying that the move was a good one somewhere, this is the same fallacy that wants Bill back in the White House. But if Hillary had any class, she'd have just said "that was my husband's policy, not mine."
Did she back it, anyone? If she did feel free to correct me (with some substance, preferably).
{"commentId":1755185,"threadId":"258269","contentId":"1463657","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 1 vote
#2 - Thu May 1, 2008 2:17 PM EDT{"commentId":1755727,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
She cannot pick and chose what she wants to identify with from her husband's administration if she is going around saying her husband had such a great record and she will do the same. That was my husband's policy will not cut it.
There is no fallacy. They are running as a team, you know two for one. They started out that way and they are still doing it. Now she wants to pick and chose which policies to associate with.
More Clinton double speak.
{"commentId":1755727,"threadId":"258269","contentId":"1463657","authorDomain":"marygj"}
{"commentId":1755751,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
They're not running as a team any more than she's running on her own. A month or so ago, you'd see four stories a week involving that. Two had Hillary praising Bill and using her First Lady experience, and two had Hillary saying she wants to be identified separately from him. That's where the double-speak lies. I just wish she'd come out, make up her mind, and stick to it whether Bill is to be counted for her or not. In the mean time, as long as I disagree with people who want a third Bill term (which wouldn't be the worst thing ever), I on principle can't extrapolate Bill to Hillary.
{"commentId":1755751,"threadId":"258269","contentId":"1463657","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1755783,"authorDomain":"roybatty"}
But you can't extrapolate Bill's decision to Hillary for the same reason that the if you get Hill, you get Bill argument is a fallacy.
As long as Hillary is to cite her "experience" in the White House this is fair game. If she leads us to believe she had a hand in decision making there, she should take lumps for that decision making here.
{"commentId":1755783,"threadId":"258269","contentId":"1463657","authorDomain":"roybatty"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1755994,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
Steve they are joined at the hip and are both fighting to get the double power and money when they make history as the ONLY husband and wife to be president. Imagine that. Trumps being father and son or cousins.
{"commentId":1755994,"threadId":"258269","contentId":"1463657","authorDomain":"marygj"}
{"commentId":1756314,"authorDomain":"truthlover"}
So... why isn't Obama running with this? It seems to be now, as it did when NAFTA passed, that this IS THE ISSUE. Why isn't it out there?
{"commentId":1756314,"threadId":"258269","contentId":"1463657","authorDomain":"truthlover"}
- 1 vote
#3 - Thu May 1, 2008 7:49 PM EDT{"commentId":1756669,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
I don't know why NOBODY has hit the Clintons on NAFTA, CAFTA, China (Bill $1.2 million from business men), Colombia ($800,000 from business men). The media is doing a very lousy job and that is why I tune them out during the day and listen to Ed Schulz or others.
{"commentId":1756669,"threadId":"258269","contentId":"1463657","authorDomain":"marygj"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"258269","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
