Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Feb
17
Wow. Thank you Bill Sloat for being so keen-eyed.
From Newsday:
Because [our coverage of Clinton's NAFTA position, during her Senate primary race in 2006 has now] raised questions — with Clinton criticizing Obama for making “false claims” in the mail piece — we’ve looked into the chart. In it, we did not have the Clinton campaign using the word “boon” in describing NAFTA. The word was our characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements.
Tasini called for scrapping NAFTA in 2006. She did not.
We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy at that time. Also, for that matter, Clinton’s campaign did not contact us to question the item after it appeared in print.
Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said “boon,” not us. It’s an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office.
That said, we should have been clearer. [my emphasis]
Good for Newsday and thank you again to Bill Sloat.
In this Ohio Daily Blog post, before Newsday published the above information, Jeff expresses his belief that there’s enough basis in reality for Barack Obama to raise Clinton’s record on NAFTA an issue.
But now that Newsday has recognized its error, will Obama do the same?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:52 am February 17th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Blogging, Business, Campaigning, Economy, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, NAFTA, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008
Comments
7 Responses to “NY Newsday takes blame for Obama’s misleading NAFTA campaign literature”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Wow. Newsday intended “boon” as the substance of Clinton’s position, but not as a direct quote. Obama’s mailer strongly suggests she used the word – but if that’s what she meant (word choice aside), what’s the harm?
Fascinating. In a wierd way it reminds me of the people who came forward to denounce the documents that Dan Rather relied upon in reporting that George Bush didn’t fulfill his service in the Air National Guard. Those people (I think it was more than one, but maybe it was just one person) said that the documents were not authentic, but were careful to say that they weren’t disagreeing with the truth of what the forged documents said. In the ensuing furor, the substance of the report was lost, and the forgery angle drowned out the underlying story.
Could that happen here? The misquotation angle trumps the underlying claim, which has at least an arguable basis?
Well – as you know, I’m no huge Obamamaniac nor am I in love with Hillary but so far, I don’t hear Obama apologizing or retracting, and I don’t hear a huge cry for him to do so, to the extent that it overshadows the underlying claim.
I think, for now anyway, he continues to have the favor of the press more than Clinton but I would think that he cannot withstand too many instances where he is stretching things. The hypocrisy angle will then creep in – and I think that’s a real killer. Supporters of any candidate can’t be pointing out lies and deceptions of the opponent if the one they support does the exact same thing, even if it’s in a different context.
This is, in part, why I continue to say that being called a rising star and not reining in expectations are very dangerous paths to extend – esp. with so many more months left, and we’re not even in the general.
Can’t they both just start talking up their plans? I spent some time on The Wash Post last week comparing health care plans between the two of them and then expanded into the blogosphere. For me personally it helped reinforce why I am supporting Obama. Others might feel differently. But it’s growing tiresome just hearing the he said she said ‘stuff’ again. And it will only get worse as we go on.
But Carole – that is WAY too logical and reasonable!
To paraphrase George Herbert Walker Bush, “Read the mailer stupid!”. Obama’s mailer explicitly states that the word “boon” was Newsday’s characterization of her NAFTA position based on a review of past stories and her public statements:
“According to a Newsday issues rundown, ‘Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy.’ Newsday wrote in 2008, the word “boon” was their “characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements.”
Ok. Obama used the quotation marks wrong. That’s all you needed to say. To add “It’s an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office.” is campaigning for her. Looks like you like her now. Well, you have to sit there and smell your own doodle. You did the research and used the “boon” word.
Arly and Gillis – thanks for reading and commenting – be sure to stop by Jeff Coryell’s blog, Ohio Daily Blog, where the entire coverage began.