Be sure to visit the official website of The Law Office of Michael Dylan Brennan, LLC

  • Take me there NOW
  • LEGAL: All Original Material (c)2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Michael Dylan Brennan and The Audient Files, with no claim to any original works borrowed pursuant to and consistent with the Fair Use Doctrine, 17 U.S.C. 107.

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Thursday, March 06, 2008

    Another Example of Clintonian Sophistry

    So. It looks like it was actually the Hillary Clinton campaign that contacted the Canadians and told them not to worry about the chest-beating on NAFTA in Ohio:

    At the end of an extended conversation, [Prime Minister Harper's Chief of Staff Ian] Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

    Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

    Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

    "Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

    "He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

    Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

    So, it was NOT the Obama campaign, as originally reported. This, of course, did not stop the Clinton campaign from running this negative radio ad here in Ohio:

    This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP. While Senator Obama has crisscrossed Ohio giving speeches attacking NAFTA, his top economic advisor was telling the Canadians that was all just political maneuvering. A newly released document from the Canadian government shows that Obama's senior economic advisor met with the Canadian Consul General and made clear that Obama's attack on NAFTA were just, quote, "political maneuvering," not policy. Political maneuvering, not policy. In fact, the document shows that Obama's advisor also assured the Canadians that these attacks against NAFTA would not continue. Obama would not want to be, quote, "fundamentally changing the agreement." As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada. How will Ohioans decide whether they can believe Senator Obama's words? We'll find that out on election day. Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.

    Another fine example of Clintonian parsing of the facts and sophistry. The ad begins with calling this a "news story reported by AP." So it isn't Clinton campaign saying it, it is the AP reporting it. Even though the Clinton campaign knew that the AP story was inaccurate, as they were the ones that contacted the Canadians about NAFTA, they ran with it anyway. And they can techincially say that they weren't lying about it because all they did was pass along what the AP reported -- they weren't actually saying it themselves.

    Anyone remember what the definition of "is" is?

    Just another reason I do not and cannot support Hillary. While it might be fun to watch such sophistry and bullshit fly at McCain in the general, the downside would be having to deal with that sophistry and bullshit for the four years after that. Schadenfreude is still a hobby of mine; I can take sick pleasure in John McCain's electoral suffering this year, but not the nation's over the next four years.

    Comments on "Another Example of Clintonian Sophistry"


    Blogger Kristen said ... (11:15 AM, March 06, 2008) : 

    I guess you'll have to vote for Nader if Clinton gets the nom then.


    Blogger Gina Ventre said ... (11:30 AM, March 06, 2008) : 

    I prefer Nader's unwavering stand for his principles over Clinton doublespeak.

    It's simply not enough to say that we want a Democratic Woman in the White House. It's not enough to say that we want a Democrat in the White House. Anyone can advocate change from the dangerous ignorance and idiocy currently residing there. Change has to be substantive. It can't just be "Not What We Have Now."


    Blogger Kate Anne said ... (3:08 PM, March 11, 2008) : 

    Then there is the OTHER problem of Hillary Clinton basically indicating she supports McCain after herself -- when she talks about experience, her, his, and that instead of experience Obama made a speech. I've heard others say, if she cannot be the Democratic nominee she'd like McCain in for one term and then she will run again in 2012. ARGH!!!


    post a comment