Bad Oppo Alert! Hillary Did Not List Ronald Reagan As Favorite President

In an effort to divert attention from Senator Obama’s comments about President Reagan and his assertion that the GOP has been the "party of ideas," the Obama campaign circulated an item this evening from the Salmon Press in New Hampshire that asserts that Senator Clinton listed the former President as one of her favorite presidents. In fact, Senator Clinton only complimented President Reagan’s communications skills – an attribute of his that has been widely praised by Americans of all ideological stripes – and did not list him as one of her favorite presidents. She also noted that she respected George H.W. Bush.

David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:

"The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

She listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that."

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/ (yes it's the fact hub, and as soon as you find a factual error in regards to this post, get back to me)

And she never voted for the IWR either!

Vote for triangulating Hillary, the Princess of Peace, NOW!!!!!!!111!!1!1

It's morning in Amerikkka, win one for the gipper, bedtime for Bonzo!

...Until some idiot killed it.

Yes, I've read a poem. Try not to faint.

but it's usually reffered as an albatross around the neck. They made the man wear the albatross in the hopes that it would word off the bad luck it didn't.

From a very good movie you should go watch immediately. :P

and I thought we were talking about the poem rhyme of the ancient mariner.

Which in turn refers to the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.

fyi iron maiden did a song based around rhyme of the ancient mariner.

Sign me up for Hillary! It doesn't get more progressive than her!
:woohoo:

If you read that thread you might be surprised what you find there.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

IN FACT IT SAYS SHE WILL PUT REPUBLICANS IN HER CABINET AS WELL!!!

ON HER OWN WEBSITE NO LESS!

Now read my post again.

If she *really did* say it, then finding a direct quote should be easy!

She doesn't proofread everything that appears on her website, and I doubt that Obama or Edwards do either.

Can we both agree there has been gross mis-characterization on both sides?

I can provide quotes if you need them.

Do you need the actual quote from the page on her site?

If she actually did say it, get me a direct quote and I'll be happy to admit that you are right. Unfortunatley for you, no such quote exists, which is probably why you haven't provided it yet.

It is a quote from her website, as indicated by the tag at the bottom.

...

Go look up on google what a "direct quote" is, then come back and give it another try.

Are you suggesting that's not really her site?

Then get back to me.

this is a quote from the editorial endorsing Clinton and is not a direct quote from clinton. having said that, it is probably fair to assume that something she did say led the writers of the editorial to believe what they wrote.

if it's true that she plans to have republicans in her cabinet, that sickens me. there isn't a decent one left as far as i know (i mean not in politics - i still love my sister and my brother).

edited for grammar

"A direct quote is when you take information from a source and put it in the exact words from the source itself. ...
www.uah.edu/library/turnitin/studentterm.htm"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-40,GGLJ:en&defl=en&q=define:Direct+quote&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Sorry. You lose. :hi:

If we're talking about something that Hillary supposedly said, wouldn't you say that it's important to have a direct quote from the source itself?

release talking about her endorsements by Salmon newspapers. The writer claims Regean is one of her favorite presidents.

A representative of Salmon newspapers putting it context of what was actually said.

In order to buy into the damage control spin, one also has to wonder what other bits of misinformation are posted at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Political expediency is what best defines her candidacy.

advantage to post a newspaper endorsement that mentions RR as one of her fav presidents? Its a little obscure , dontcha think? I am willing to bet you a dollar that it wouldn't even be a topic of disucusion here on DU if someone hadn't gone looking for a "look, she did it to" defense to Obama's comments. I think they probably posted it because it was a newspaper endorsement and that had nothing to do with RR.

Her appearance on Tyra was probably motivated by political advantage, but I think it's really stretching it to say that posting a newspaper endorsement that misrepresents whagt she actually said about RR was done for that reason.

And I do really think it is as bad as Obama -which is to say that both are gross distortions of the records of Hillary and Obama.

Hello, BlueStateGirl. Can WE be friendly with each other. I am so sick of fighting with the other side.

and doesn't matter at all, so I haven't made a choice.

Somedays I lean Hillary, some days Obama or Edwards. I have never not been able to commit to a candidate. Barak's message is inspiring, I agree with Edward's anti- corporate pro working class message, and I think Hillary is probably the most prepared.
But for some reason I feel compelled to defend Hillary. I think it probably boils down to her being a woman. Everytime I hear my dad or brother make some smart ass comment getting angry at Bill and starting a war, and how a woman cannot be president, or I hear some snarky commentator talk about her clothing choice, I am determined to to vote for her.

All I know for sure, is that I will vote for, campaign for and donate to whoever our Party's nominee is.


As I said in an earlier post, I really really hate primary season.

I agree with everything you said about the candidates. I am feeling, though, the same way towards Obama that you are feeling towards Hillary. A need to defend him against these attacks.

But, in the end, we will all vote for the Dem.

Frankly, in my state, the Primary is the only vote I really have since we ALWAYS go Blue anyway.

I can find you at least 10 Obamatons who have stated that they won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.

As I said in another thread, I will from this point on, only engage in conversations that admit the existence of the color grey.

I cannot discuss things in this moronic way anymore. I had a very nice exchange of thoughts with some people on your side and I find that I am now hungry for a real exchange of ideas and honesty instead of this thin gruel passing for communication.

If you want to have a nice, thoughtful exchange of ideas with me, I will be overjoyed -honestly - and I will promise to reciprocate by giving honesty and throughfulness.

If you are not interested in that, and merely want to one-upsman the other, I respectfully ask you to leave me alone.

I apologize for any beast-like behavior on my part, but I cannot do it anymore.

Thanks.

And YOU'RE talking about "damage control"???

without checking with the campaign advisors. Of course not. Not a statement like that.

Oh, and I know by now that you don't agree, but I swear by all that is holy to me, that the Obama statements were not meant in the way you are portraying them.

His quotes have been entirely mischaracterized. I really, really believe that and pushing that button so many, many times is really infuriating. Can we at least understand that much?

If this is really such an inaccurately worded article, should we be upset with ANYONE who sends it around?

"the Obama campaign circulated an item this evening from the Salmon Press in New Hampshire that asserts that Senator Clinton listed the former President as one of her favorite presidents.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how Obama is being a "bad oppo" for circulating an article that Hillary has put on her own web site. On another note, why is Obama personally responsible for his what those in his campaign do (circulate this story), but Hillary is not responsible for what those in her campaign do (the content of her own website)?

It's good to see the context of the statement, and I'll agree that, this being the case, this is not Hillary saying that Raygun was one of her favorite presidents, but you're reaching to suggest that Obama's doing something underhanded here.

specific qualities she admired, not favorite presidents.

Tortured explanations don't really impress me after the great brouhaha about Obama's political analysis.

Because no such quote exists.

I'm sorry to see that you've adopted it.

As the Obamatons have done for the past year or so. There is no difference between them and the hardcore fundies. They just happen to support a Dem.

Asking for a direct quote in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from an article that the Clinton campaign posted to its own Web site is more than just sleazy. It's pathetic.

When you find yourself in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging.

What IS is posters trying to act like it's a quote from HRC.

Ipersonally don't like that she said she respected Bush Sr. Iunderstand why she said it, but I don't like it. However, she didn't sayeither he nor Reagan was one of her favorite presidents. Trying to use this as a diversion is exhausting.

endorsement. It is not a direct quote from her.

Regean is no more one of her favorite presidents than he is Obama's.

...Specified that they were "favorite presidents."

Clinton's OWN PRESS RELEASE.

Read that again.

Hillary Clinton's campaign PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE which claimed that Clinton listed Reagan among her favorite presidents. Hillary Clinton's campaign PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE saying so.

CLINTON'S OWN PRESS RELEASE.

It's on her website, right here --> http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

See where it says it's a news release?

This isn't some pro-Hillary blogger or some local campaign manager, this is a press release coming directly from the Clinton campaign.

And yet we've got an OP blaming it on Obama. Classic.

Sheesh, one would expect them to provide a direct quote, that would really put an end to all of this.

If the official Hillary Clinton for President in 2008 presidential campaign puts out a press release proudly touting an editorial where she is said to have Ronald Reagan in a list of her favorite Presidents, it doesn't matter what her specific words were.

The press release gave the editorial legitimacy. If the Clinton campaign did not agree with the editorial, they would not have printed it. Because they did print it in their press release, they gave it their stamp of approval.

Could it have been overzealous on their part? Maybe. And I'm sure Clinton did give more context on this Reagan issue. But the fact is, you're blaming Obama and his campaign and supporters for something that is pulled directly off a Hillary Clinton campaign website. It's not his fault if people get upset over it, it's hers.

Provide me with a direct quote, and I'll be happy to admit that I am wrong.

Then why did the Clinton campaign put out a press release saying that it did?!

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I don't care what Clinton said about Reagan. I don't care if there was more context or whether it even did or did not happen, because I don't care what Clinton said about Reagan.

What I care about is that you are accusing Barack Obama of fabricating evidence against Senator Clinton when it was, in fact, a press release posted by Senator Clinton's campaign to her official website. And given that you've been provided with the link to Clinton's website, where this story has sat for a month (here it is again: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674), I fully expect you to post an apology to Senator Obama for the baseless accusation and attack.

Try again.

Are you even going to bother to read what I post?

"Now, I'm going to say it again, and I've said this time and time again, Ronald Reagan was a great American President, and I'm thankful for everything he did for this country. He's one of my favorite Presidents." -Hillary Clinton

There. Now that I have your attention...

That is obviously not an actual quote from Senator Clinton.

What I just did right there? That was fabrication. That's what you're accusing Senator Obama's campaign of.

Considering that Senator Obama's campaign hasn't even touched this, and the offending article came from a pro-Hillary newspaper that was then reprinted as a press release on Clinton's own website, you are completely off-base accusing Senator Obama of doing anything wrong here. Can you not admit at least that?

To Senator Obama and his campaign for reprinting, spreading, and defending these lies accusing them of things they had absolutely no part in.

Honestly, isn't it?

That newspaper chain was the first in New Hampshire to make an editorial endorsement in the Democratic race for President. They endorsed Hillary Clinton. It was news, not only that but it was positive news for the Clinton campaign. Had that endorsement gone instead to Obama or Edwards or Richardson or anyone else it would still have been news but it wouldn't have been posted at the Clinton campaign site. Instead it would have been posted at the Obama or Edwards or Richardson etc. web site.

This press release is being lifted out of the section of her web site called "Archives". It was newsworthy for a short period of time around the date of the actual editiorial, but Clinton's campaign site doesn't delete old press releases so it can still be found in archives.

And it is standard procedure to offer the full text of an editorial endorsing a political candidate in a press release to other media, not just cherry picked lines from out of it. Therfor it was distributed as written which is what would have been common practice and expected. Of course Clinton's campaign would make note of a NH newspaper endorsement made for her, whenever the story got picked up from that Press release in the national press what was commented on was that she got the endorsement, not the full blown reasoning written behind it as contained in each of the paragraphs of it. But the national media expects to be given the full source material of the editorial and that is what the Clinton campaign provided.

There is no mystery here. Had anyone commented at the time about that particular line in the editorial the Clinton campaign would have responded exactly as it has as shown in the OP. They would have provided the literal context for her remarks, but they sure as hell would have looked foolish distributing an editorial endorsing Clinton with a small print disclaimer attached in the first place.

You know, I've had you one ignore for months and months, and suddenly you were no longer on my list. You're back on -- because the hatefest you're helping to fuel has went insane.

I have tried several times to start a peace campaign to no avail.

The Reagan thing sent me spinning into crazy land, sorry.

It was brutal and dishonest. I will return fire until there is a truce.

It's insane.

This is an OUTRAGE!!!

And would actually hang his picture in the White House!!!!!!!!!!!

I am horrified.

:rofl:

Everyone took your bullshit yesterday. Learn how to laugh.

Don't you know how to write, "journalist"?

Or is that just what you want to be when you grow up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI_SqqJIU14&feature=related

:scared:

A right-wing hooterville newspaper publisher runs t Hillary's defense a nonth after the fact. I'm impressed!

and what did he communicate? Optimism in his conservative values, yeah, I remember that.

But that's sooooo different than what Obama said about Reagan. Except Obama didn't say he'd hang his portrait in the White House. Obama said he wanted to get us off that path.

That is in fact worse than what Obama said. Stop shooting yourself in the foot.

But I do seriously object to any attempts at revising history, especially history as recent as last month.

It's from a press release on her own website. How the hell is Obama responsible for this?

Ding! Ding! Ding!
It's another triangulation!!

Obama makes an astute analysis of the political climate in 1980 while caught on camera musing, but Hillary posts that on her official website and these people's heads explode.
Go figure.

I trust it to not cherry pick phrases out of the text of an endorsement instead of releasing the text as originally published and available from the newspaper. I trust the Clinton campaign to document all significant media endorsements that her candidacy wins. I trust it to respond to direct questions about the text of any editorial that they so post. I trust it not to look foolish by issuing disclaimers to favorable editorials at the time of those editorials unless someone has an actual question about it.

She listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills.



All Obama did was say he took the nation in a different direction. He just said it with more style than Billary is capable of.



Also from her web site (the link is on another thread)

But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.

And, the paragraph you quote is not a quote, it's from an OP-ED

:rofl:

Hopefully we won't see much of him after tommorow.

he's really not.

Clintonian-speak on steroids.... :spray:

Depends on what the definition of "BULLSHIT" is...

they will stoop to ANYTHING - to spew their LIES -while at the same time IGNORING and DEFENDING the INDEFENSIBLE...

I am not surprised by all this, however...

I'm voting in the Nevada Caucuses tomorrow - and I sure as hell won't be in the fucking obamanuts side of the room...

It did not come from Obama or his campaign or his supporters. It came directly from Hillary Clinton's campaign website. The OP is having a knee-jerk "blame Obama" response for something Senator Obama had absolutely nothing to do with.

The press release is still up on her website, by the way: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

That was very sneaky of them. I sure as hell won't be voting for him in Nevada tomorrow either. :mad:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

"Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Nixon did not and Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it."

-- Barack Hussein Obama


I'd argue that eliminating the budget deficit under Clinton changed the trajectory in this country more than Ronald Reagan ever did.

But, then, again....I'm a Democrat.

Very subtle. I'm sure that you're very diligent to always write "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" any time you refer to her, or "John Reid Edwards"?

No, you're not? You weren't even aware those were the candidates' middle names? Astounding.

William Jefferson Clinton

Richard Milhouse Nixon

Lyndon Baines Johnson

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Franklin Deleano Roosevelt


As a presidential candidate, I think it comes with the turf.

I don't get it.

Does he get special treatment for some reason?

Unless you're going to meticulously use Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and John Reid Edwards and Dennis John Kucinich and Michael Dale Huckabee and Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, etc., you are giving Obama special treatment. It's an obvious and transparent attempt to capitalize on his rather tragic middle name. It's juvenile, xenophobic, and racist.

If you do in fact use every candidate's middle name when you refer to them, then I apologize in advance. I consider it unlikely.

All of those labels because I used someone's full name?

That doesn't even make sense.

Maybe I think of him as on the same level as a Richard Milhouse Nixon or a Lyndon Baines Johnson - both presidents.

Or maybe you don't?

Among other right-wing attack groups. It's a quick "accidental" typo away from "Barack Hussein Osama."

Again, unless you use the full names of all the candidates, not just that one, then you're singling out Obama for some reason. Considering your obvious distaste for him, I can imagine only one reason, and that is to capitalize on the fact that his middle name happens to be Arabic and the same as the last name of the former dictator of Iraq, which is nothing short of pandering to xenophobic, juvenile bigots. And now you're playing wink-wink-nudge-nudge with the issue since I've called you out on it.

I don't imagine that xenophobia and racism play well here, but apparently you might.

For the record, Johnson and Nixon are rarely referred to by their full names. Johnson is usually "Lyndon B. Johnson" or "LBJ" while Nixon is usually simply "Richard Nixon."

And no, I certainly don't feel Obama is in the same class as those two.

so, for starters, bite me.

Juvenile, perhaps, but heartfelt, for sure.

You are way out of line and you have created something that perhaps you think is reality, but furthest from the truth.

I don't distaste him a bit. Distrust him perhaps, yes. Hate. Never.

To be quite explicit, I don't think he is electable.

In fact, his campaign will most likely peter out by Valentines Day - just in time so that we all don't have to see Patrick Fitzgerald at a press conference when the Tony Rezko trial opens on February 24th saving the party embarrasment.

All of that said, I was called many things here and usually I make nice.

But to you, here's a hearty: Fuck you!

No wink-wink-nudge-nudge required.

I wasn't accusing you of being a Freeper infiltrator, I was simply pointing out that the tactic you used--making a point of using Obama's middle name, without cause, and without applying it uniformly to the other candidates--is approaching the ways that Freepers attack our candidates on their own site. Barack Saddam Hussein Obama Osama, Hildebeest, Sore/Loserman, etc... When done outright and over-the-top, it's merely juvenile, but when done subtly, it becomes more intentionally malevolent.

Distrust, electability, Rezko, those are all valid arguments to make and valid discussions to have about Senator Obama. I just didn't like the way you tried to sneak in a jab.

And if you weren't trying to sneak in a jab, I'd be interested as to the specific reason you chose to include Senator Obama's middle name, when that's something people rarely do in conversation.

Look numbnuts I called him by his name.

Straight up. End of story.

Go beat a dead horse somewhere else.

If his middle name is a negative, then we should ALL start including it in every DU post and conversation, because the Right Wing will smush it into America's face every chance it gets.

We need to use it preemptively, and hope America becomes desensitized.

Because it took less than a year for the budget to go back into defecit.

That's all anyone said when it concerned Obama.

:shrug:

Clinton plays by special rules.

Isn't there a Dem with good communication skills she could point to?

You cannot deny! Check it out for yo-self!

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

:rofl:

Obama was caught extemporizing.

THIS, on the other hand, is a CALCULATED MESSAGE THAT SHE CHOSE TO BROADCAST.

Ha ha ha! It is SO much more damning then the Obama quote! Because it shows her "finger to the wind" approach to politics.

The best interpretation is that it was for political expediency.

The less kind interpretation is that she really intends to put Republicans in her cabinet.

*wink wink* *nod nod*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4111936

That is so blindingly hilarious. "Oh, would you look at that. We accidentally erased this tape now that it's no longer politically expedient. Guess we'll never know what Senator Clinton really said."

To the current administration "accidentally" deleting old emails against a court order? Or to the Nixon administration "accidentally" erasing potentially incriminating sections of audio tape? I do see a few parallels.

Then again, the audio might genuinely have just gotten damaged. I would think that if these people are meeting with Hillary freaking Clinton they'd do a better job of recording it for posterity, but ah well...

There is some concern about the U.S. Government regulating the U.S. Government. Lee L. Mercer will enforce regulating issues pertaining to the U.S. Government regulations and according to the U.S. Government enforcements.

but this is DU, don't worry about it. If this "diabolical statement" made the news, I doubt it would bat an eyelash. Obama's video on the other hand....

Keep talking Lirwin.

How come she's praising his communication skills when the only reason he ever was succesful as a President, and was able to do everything he did was because of his communication skills.

Isn't that praising his whole Presidency? He was really good at pulling the wool over Ameria's eyes right, so amen to that.

Reagan's portrait is not fit to appear on toilet paper!

and take FULL advantage of vis a vis Obama,

the facts just get in the way of the outrage. And the way you people act, I don't have much sympathy for you.

made a terrific blunder.:nopity:

of wishful-thinking Clinton supporters. :nopity:

as an indictment against her?!?! :rofl:

Before she slammed Obama's remarks. But then again, back in December, polls were showing that complimenting Reagan was favorable. So it's hard to blame her.

But, like it or not, she still praised Reagan, just like Obama did.

You can keep trying to deny it, but I'll keep pointing it out.

Obama says it, and its....."BAD, CONTEMPTABLE, SHAMEFUL".

Hillary puts it on her own campaign website, and....."Its ALL good!"



I'm glad I don't live in HillaryWorld (or ObamaNation).
I get too dizzy and it makes me want to throw up.