Comments on: NY Newsday takes blame for Obama’s misleading NAFTA campaign literature

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:35:09 +0000

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.

By: Gillis

Gillis — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:31:06 +0000

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.

By: Arly

Arly — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:59:34 +0000

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.”

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:36:09 +0000

But Carole – that is WAY too logical and reasonable!

By: Carole Cohen

Carole Cohen — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:15:31 +0000

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.

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:35:24 +0000

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.

By: Jeff Coryell

Jeff Coryell — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:53:28 +0000

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?