The Talk Radio News Service

The Talk Radio News Service is the only information news service dedicated to serving the talk radio community. TRNS maintains a Washington office that includes White House, Capitol Hill and Pentagon staffed bureaus, and a New York office with a United Nations staffed bureau.

← Eighty, The New Sixty-five? Today at Talk Radio News Service →

Clinton Fundraiser Focuses on Middle Class

March 27th, 2008 by Staff · 1 Comment

Hillary Clinton signs autographs

Hillary Clinton greets supporters

After an introduction from her daughter and a full high school marching band, Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton took the stage at a fundraising event at the Daughters of the American Revolution building last evening. Described by her daughter as the “progressive President we need” Clinton was enthusiastic and described a wide variety of the stances she backed, particularly those pertaining to the economy and health care.

Clinton geared much of her speech to appeal to a primarily middle class crowd, one which seemed to lack diversity. Hillary fans waved “Hillary for President” signs and cheered emphatically immediately as she took the stage. The crowd took particular pleasure when Clinton described having a “sigh of relief” when America would see a moving van leave the White House following President Bush’s time in office.

Clinton also discussed passing stem cell research laws vetoed by Bush, creating a new American energy policy, ending President Bush’s “War on Science,” and providing sufficient funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. Senator Clinton said she did not “want to give up on any child” and discussed providing tax relief for Americans involved in public service.

Digg This [?]

Tags: News/Commentary

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 Truth Squad // Apr 1, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Reprint

    Of course Clinton’s Bosnia tale would have a strong negative effect–HRC’s lying or “misspeaking” constitutes a recognizable pattern, and reminds many of the cr*p from the previous Clinton administration.

    What’s truly bizarre, though, is that HRC risks lying about “dumb” stuff. She must think she won’t get caught, although when she does get caught, she seems to casually shrug off her “misstatements.” It’s bizarre, almost pathological.

    Here are three dumb lies that beg the question: Why would she lie about this relatively inconsequential stuff? And what does that say about her ability to tell the truth about difficult matters?

    ***Appearing on NBC’s DATELINE, Sen. Clinton told Jane Pauley that Chelsea was around the World Trade Center on the morning of Sept. 11th:

    “She had gone on what she thought would be a great jog,” Hillary Clinton explained. “She was going down to Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She was going to get a cup of coffee and - that’s when the plane hit!”

    Hillary’s dramatic story about her daughter’s close call with the Twin Towers became a media sensation. “At that moment, she was not just a Senator, but a concerned parent,” TODAY show’s Katie Couric told viewers on 9/18/2001.
    TRUTH: In the Dec/Jan 2002 issue of TALK magazine, Chelsea wrote that she was staying at a friend’s apt in Union Square, 12 blocks away. Her friend called with news about the first plane crashing into the WTC. Chelsea turned on the TV and watched the second plane crash.
    “I stared senselessly at the television,” Chelsea writes.

    ****Hillary started claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary after she met him in 1995. Bill Clinton even included this “true” story in his 2004 autobiography. Thing is, HRC was born in 1947, and Edmund Hillary didn’t conquer Mt. Everest until 1953, when HRC was 6 years old.
    TRUTH: In October 2006, a campaign aide finally admitted it was not true after all, that it was just a “sweet family story that her mother told her to inspire greatness.” This sweet story, however, had never before been mentioned anywhere.

    ***On numerous other occasions, including in her Iowa stump speech, Clinton has said, “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.” And that lead to her being sent to Bosnia and coming under sniper fire.
    TRUTH: Well, now we know.

    Actually, what hasn’t been covered much are her cascading excuses or “misstatements” about this Bosnia tale, culminating in her saying this to KDKA radio in Pittsburgh on 3/25/08:
    “I have written about this and described in many different settings and I did misspeak the other day,” Clinton said during a live 10-minute interview. “This has been a very long campaign….Last week for the first time in 12 years or so, I misspoke.”

    Bizarro. No wonder Obama’s lead has grown. It’s a wonder it’s not even bigger.

Leave a Comment

Note: clicking "Submit" signals acceptance of the comment policy printed below.

Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")

Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.

And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.

Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.

Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.

And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.