"...that's what I am going to do as President AGAIN.." - Hillary ...LINK

[Blackhatjack]

Edited to correct the quote as pointed out by my good friend, CGA. THanks Dave for the heads up. Just further evidence that 'multitasking' is to be avoided in matters of politics.

AGAIN? Hmmmm..... Was Hillary elected President before?

This was a CNN interview between Candy Crowley and Hillary Clinton. The link below will direct you to a DU thread and posted link to video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x69658

[rucky]

1. What if she really was president that whole time?

and Bill Clinton was just a good campaigner?

My mind is blowing my mind.

[aquart]

2. Wow. Major scandal. Oh my. How criminal.

What's the jail sentence for that word?

[Deja Q]

11. None, until an investigation shows who was president for those 8 years...

Either Bill was a shadow president for her (which is fraud), or she has psychotic delusions of grandeur (which means she's too mentally unbalanced to run for a marathon, much less the Presidency...)

[aquart]

14. Yes, dear. Of course.

Now how about a paragraph or two on her grating laugh and whatever other inconsequential idiocy you can think of.

Freud has so much to answer for.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Which is it?

the lead-in to the video says "slip of the tongue" while simultaneously saying Clinton thinks she's been President before.

So which is it?

[yodermon]

6. oh ha ha monkey.

you're too clever by half.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
It's called a Freudian slip.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. So you believe

she actually thinks she was President before?

[yodermon]

13. subconsciously, yes.

She wants people to think back on Bill's presidency while looking forward to her presidency. She's arrogating Bill's reign to herself. Nothing wrong with that as a campaign tactic but such a mindset is what leads to slips of the tongue.

And no, i do not think that she's clinically insane and actually literally believes that she was the actual president. If that's the only argument that will satisfy you then I concede the point.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. How about the possibility that the "again"

referred to what followed, not what preceded. The video doesn't give the whole sentence in one piece, but she could be saying "when I'm president, again a focus on immigration reform will be a priority"

[yodermon]

20. she was certainly saying that.

"They (governors) should not be making immigration policy. The federal government should be making immigration policy, and, that's what I'm going to try to do as president again; and I do not believe that in the context of federal immigration reform that that would be an issue that governors would have to contend with."

If she's president AGAIN, then the federal government, as you say, will certainly be making immigration policy AGAIN.

I certainly don't mind if she's president AGAIN, and I don't think you'd mind if she's president AGAIN either!

:hi:

:rofl:

[Blackhatjack]

8. I deal in facts -- I reported what she said. Title of Video is someone else's interpretation...

So that is what it is. No spin.

[MyNameGoesHere]

21. You deal in facts?

The video had an intentional repeat in it to focus on a remark half way into a sentence. Yet you deal in fact? You deal in spin.

[Blackhatjack]

25. How is repeating what she said 'spin' ?? What version of truth are you peddling?

I guess if Hillary said anything caught on videotape you would claim that is 'spin' as well if it did not fit in with your pro-Hillary agenda.

[MyNameGoesHere]

33. No your facts are differrent than mine.

I would have put the link to an unaltered clip. You pointed us to a link that was altered. That is not a fact or really anything other than promoting some one else propaganda. It is not about anything i believe in <by the way you are ignorant about who i support so please do not try to make more of an ass of yourself> it is about telling the truth. You were not dealing in facts.

[Blackhatjack]

40. You are free to link to any 'unaltered clip' --but I am unaware than one exists.

This was a CNN exclusive interview. It was a CNN exclusive video clip.

Do us all a favor and post a LINK to an unaltered clip.

How is a video clip of a candidate's statement propaganda?

IS the video clip not true?

THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

[MyNameGoesHere]

46. No you are forgetting that the

poster of this clip intentionally did a skip and repeat in the middle. And then had a commentary placed in it as well. The fact is she said something that was interpreted differently by different people. Nothing more nothing less. I am sure the clip will be released and played by the right wing pundits soon enough. you can go listen to it there. And i am sure they will not do the same type of editing that was in this clip <haha> Matter of fact i am sure this is perfect F***er Carlson material. And it will probably air on limpballs too.So those are two places i am sure you can watch it. I will pass.

[Blackhatjack]

49. You were the one insisting on an unaltered clip. If one does not exist....

then you have no argument.

I am sorry that you are unable to admit that Hillary actually said the phrase highlighted, but that is the unavoidable truth.

Video clips are available to both Democrats and Republicans. If the 'other side' decides to use a video clip posted online, there is not much anyone can do --just as if Democrats decide to use a Repub video clip posted online they cannot do much about that.

If you expect the rest of this election campaign to be conducted in sanitized conditions that will favor Hillary Clinton, you are sadly mistaken. She needs to think before she speaks or expect to see it replayed on tv and the net. Just a fact of life.

[MyNameGoesHere]

58. she did say something

but when it did the skip and repeat thing it just could not be understood by me in context. Of course i will question all the stupidity that is presented as fact, 400 dollar haircuts, UFO's, Mega house, Off color speech, and all the other fluff that is considered fact. This is nothing more than a hit job. Same as all the other smears against the other contenders. So please just be real and admit it was a smear attack and be done with it. No shame in acting like the rest of the world. hell i even saw on DU that HRC eats babies. That must be fact to.

[Blackhatjack]

61. I don't think an exclusive interview with CNN was a 'smear attack'...

You don't like the fact that the CNN clip replays something Hillary said. So be it.

I will not 'admit it was a smear attack and be done with it' because I only posted a link to a video clip that has not been proven to be inaccurate in depicting exactly what Hillary said.

Sorry, but that is an uncomfortable fact.

BTW you don't have a link to Hillary's Campaign claiming the video clip was altered do you? If it were altered I would have expected that right away. So far they have not contested the video clip as to its accuracy.

[MyNameGoesHere]

65. You are getting dense

I said the link to the youtube one was altered. Are you that incapable of admitting that you joined the smear mongers? Did you watch f**cker carlson? He would be proud of you .

[Blackhatjack]

67. I am afraid you are the one who is dense ... Hello? Can you read?

I linked to the CNN videoclip through the DU thread since it was posted in the DU Political Video Forum earlier than my OP. (I try to give DUers credit when I can for being first).

I guess you will get it eventually.

[MyNameGoesHere]

70. Yes i get it.

You want me to get a unaltered video while you are content in pushing one with a definite slant. I got it already. You win good job.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. A "slip of the tongue" can refer to an inadvertant admission of the truth.

She thinks she was president before, and accidently admitted it.

Of course, if she WAS the real president before then SHE is responsible for NAFTA, DOMA, 'don't ask, don't tell'...

[Beerboy]

4. Here's me watching Prez Hil's SOTU address;

:popcorn:

[Blackhatjack]

5. "Let's go to the videotape" ... gives us an insight to her thinking. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

7. The old joke from the 90s...

Bill and Hillary pull into a gas station. Bill notices that the attendant is Hillary's old flame from before they met.

With a smug smile, Bill says "Who would you be now if you married him?"

Hillary shoots back: "First Lady"

[snooper2]

36. that's funny...

nt

[Skip Intro]

10. Really reaching now, aren't we?

She obviously meant she'd get the fed gov to focus on immigration again.


the Hillary haters, I do believe, have finally jumped the shark

[madokie]

12. nope they'll be here forever

I came here a big hill fan but since I have been reading about her and all I will say that now I will vote for her but not with the gusto I would have a couple years ago. at first I was perplexed by the venom spewed toward her and to be honest I still am. She is a much better person on her worst day than any one of the bushie boys are on their best.

[CorpGovActivist]

16. Wait, Wait, Wait - The Quote in the Headline is Inaccurate

"That's what I'm going to do AS President again."

That misquote, coupled with the decontextualization of the quote by removing the leading sentence or two, is why lawyers are almost universally disrespected.

I watched the video to be amused at what would have been a very funny Freudian slip - but the billing of the headline did not match the "punch line," BHJ.

I know it's primary season, and people are supporting their candidate of choice as spirited partisans. But this was a bridge too far.

There is at least one perfectly rationale explanation for the imprecision in her language: she meant when the White House was securely in Democratic control again, she - as President - would tackle immigration reform on a Federal level.

Come on. You can do better than that.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

24. THanks for the heads up - I editted the OP to reflect the accurate quote.

I accept the criticism over the inaccurate quote, which I fixed.

But really Dave, I did not know you were able to read Hillary's mind when it comes to what she really meant! WOW! Must come in handy!

You know some people might interpret your mind reading as 'spin.'

However the videotape speaks for itself.

[CorpGovActivist]

29. I'm Not a Fan of Her for Prez

I'll vote for whoever the nominee is. I'd have extended the same benefit of the doubt to Edwards if a "gaffe" had a reasonable explanation.

I don't pretend to be able to read her mind. I just think that - if that video had been shown to me in a jury room - I could have come up with a reasonable "non-incriminating" interpretation. We all say things imprecisely at times (fatigue, etc.) from time to time.

We all misplace modifiers, and I sometimes cringe to think what my strict diagramer of an English teacher would say about my sentences sometimes.

: )

The whole reason I spent the time to view the video was I thought it would have been hysterically funny - and telling - if she actually said that. But even a one-word difference can change the whole meaning of a sentence: it can be the difference between mens rea (guilty mindset for non-legal types) and something much less.

I'm not a fan of her as Prez. But - as an avid watcher of the good, the bad, and the ugly of "gotchas" over the years - this one doesn't really stack up. JMHO, not an indication of my leanings in the primary.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

38. Hillary is not my first choice among Dem Candidates, but she is better than all the Repub Candidates

I have become more concerned about Hillary's corporate connections, her campaign tactics, and her inability to answer questions truthfully in a straightforward manner.

I know that when she goes up against the Repub Nominee she will be called on all of these, and she is going to have to do more than say she was 'misinterpreted.'

AS the Democratic Nominee, you are out there all alone. THere are no other candidates running against you. I hope that she will turn out to be more progressive than she appears if she becomes our next President. I fear she will not be.

[CorpGovActivist]

45. I Have Serious Doubts...

... that she can flip a combination of red states (2000 and 2004 Electoral college maps) to cobble together the magic number.

Voicing that to Hillary fans among my friends usually gets me pelted with soft objects.

Can't help it: I'm an INTJ, and I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Even worse, I've been dicing this sort of data for a long, long time, and the trendlines and distribution of her support nationwide are not promising for the general. Not to say that it's impossible, but it's a steep climb (and it shouldn't be, after 8 years of Bush).

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

50. As a bit of an amateur poll reader and strategist myself, I agree with you 100% here...

Hillary is making the case that her winning the Democratic Nomination is 'inevitable', and that given the screwups of the past 6 years by the Bush Repubs she is the guaranteed 'electable' candidate.

She started this line of campaigning by focusing only on Bush, and dismissing the rest of the Democratic slate of candidates.

But as I look at her numbers and the polling information, I see some serious problems ahead for her.

It is not popular to talk about any potential problems Hillary may face here, but her supporters need to appreciate the fact that the very individuals raising these concerns today make up a large contingent of voters the Hillary Campaign expects to vote for her in the general election.

I am surprised that most Hillary Backers cannot explain in positive terms what her positions are on the Iraq War and Iran. As best I can determine, they simply 'trust her' to do the right thing. But what is ironic is she does have a voting record and stated positions on both these issues.

[CorpGovActivist]

52. Too Many of the Same "Strategists"...

... are embedded in the HRC campaign this go-around as we've seen in prior campaigns.

Their worldviews are - well, let's say "urban" and "privileged" to be charitable - and they don't have a gut-level appreciation for what motivates voters in border/Upper Appalachian/swing states.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

55. One of the primary strategies of the Clinton Campaign that is erroneous...

They set out with the idea that if they raised the most money and 'managed' the media to highlight her campaign and provide less coverage of other Democratic Candidates, she would win by the use of sheer resources(ie. TV, Media, paid feet on the ground, push polls, etc).

Money is always one of the most important factors in a national campaign. However, it will not substitute for a campaign platform that resonates with the voting public.

Another mistake --You cannot triangulate on all major issues through the General Election. You cannot be all things to all people.

[CorpGovActivist]

60. What Works in NYC...

... doesn't in a lot of "must-win" states.

You *can* click on the magnifying glass to enlarge this county-by-county map of the 2004 election:



What you *can't* do is convince me that she can "connect the dots" on the lone holdout red splotches in Ohio, Kentucky, the Virginias, and the Carolinas to flip their Electoral College votes.

If anything, I see some Upper Appalachian red splotches lightening up somewhat. There is no excuse for that this go-around.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

28. "...is why lawyers are almost universally disrespected." Really?

Sounds like an unfounded generalization there my friend.

Lawyers are trained to look at the 'best evidence', and rely on that best evidence rather than what people characterize it to be.

My OP was a quote and a link to the videotape --which is no doubt the best evidence.

You can only put a limited amount of text in an OP title, which is what I did.

I think you owe some fine attorneys an apology for painting them with the broad brush of 'almost universally disrespected.'

If you disrespect lawyers, I would assume you will forgo their advice in the future should you be sued, or be the victim of civil rights infringement, or seek to hold this government accountable for allowing Halliburton to rip off taxpayers, or heaven forbid --be arrested for exercising your constitutional rights.

[CorpGovActivist]

30. I Like a Few Lawyers, Personally

But if that video were the basis of a lawsuit in which I were a juror, I'd vote to acquit.

Somehow, I don't think the legal whiz kid Edwards would've tried to persaude a good, sensible NC jury based on that video.

; )

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

34. Acquit? OF WHAT? It is what it is... There is nothing to persuade anyone about...

I am not sure what that video would support in the way of a lawsuit. WHat were you suggesting?

The videotape is accurate in that Hillary Clinton said what she did.

What you make of it is opinion.

[CorpGovActivist]

47. Jury Votes *Are* Opinions...

... whether voting to deadlock a criminal jury, or steadfastly arguing to persuade enough other members of a civil jury, I'd be of the opinion - cast as my vote - that that video does not constitute "proof" that she thinks she'd be President "again."

; )

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

54. Most people do not understand the role of a jury and their obligations...

Jurors are the ultimate 'finders of fact.' THat means they determine what the facts are which either support a conviction or acquittal in criminal trials, or support a finding that the plaintiff in a civil case either has presented a winning case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' or they have failed to do so.

THe Trial Judge is the ultimate authority where the applicable law is concerned.

The jury finds the facts, applies the law as given by the judge, and determines if there is sufficient evidence(trustworthy facts) to support all the elements of a crime charged, or to find all the elements needed for the plaintiff to prevail in a winning claim.

I have had jurors tell me after a trial that they 'believed' one way or the other regarding a client's case, but that they were constrained to follow the law given them and that the other side failed to provide sufficient 'facts'(evidence) to prove each and every element as required by the law.

I have no allegation that this video clip 'proves' anything. I presented it for the posters to watch and make up their own minds as to what it means. Is it a 'Freudian slip?" I don't know.

But it sure seems to have struck a nerve with Hillary backers.

However, the one fact that is beyond doubt --Hillary made the statement on videotape. It is what it is.

[CorpGovActivist]

56. What Gotti Said, Versus What He Meant...

... Gotti said a lot of things on tape, many of which the jurors took to be "euphemisms" for criminal activity.

It isn't always what it is, both to the left of "innocent remark," and to the right of it.

; )

I think she's guilty of a misplaced modifier, after watching the video (when I went to watch it, I was hoping it really did frame up the way it was billed).

There is a backlash risk associated with decontextualizing video clips. The target - whether Edwards, Obama, or Clinton - can end up reaping sympathetic undecideds, who feel they've been unfairly quoted. I hope this hasn't been pushed in Iowa by Edwards sympathizers. The race is too tight, with a lot of undecideds still up for grabs.

I'd love to see a true horse race come into NH. That would happen if: (1) she loses Iowa; or (2) she wins by the skin of her teeth, with one clear second-place finisher.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

57. If Hillary or Obama finishes 3rd in Iowa, they will still proceed on to N.H. ...

But if Edwards wins Iowa and Hillary bests Obama for 2nd there will be serious problems for Obama to regain the momentum. Obama has support in N.H. and lots of $$ so he will not be out, same as Hillary won't be out if she comes in 3rd in Iowa.

I think Iowa will be make or break for Edwards with one provisio --If there is a close win over Edwards he could still pick up momentum and stay in.

[CorpGovActivist]

62. Edwards Is Going to Benefit from Last-Minute ...

... scrutiny from undecideds who are uncomfortable - on a visceral level - with Clinton and Obama.

He is also going to benefit from last-minute "buyer's remorse" from softly-leaning Clinton and Obama supporters.

I think he'll have the largest last-minute surge of the three in Iowa, largely as a result of those two voter behavior phenomena.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

31. For the Record...

... I'm particularly fond of one lawyer who's caught primary fever.

; )

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

35. As I always said, If Hillary is the Democratic Nominee She will get my vote in the General Election

Since so many on this thread are 'interpreting' what Candidates mean when they say things captured on videotape, what do you think of the 'interpretation' of Edwards' response to the question about whether he would support Hillary as the Democratic Nominee?

Edwards said "I am not ready to answer that question right now."

It is open to several different 'interpretations', and yet the MSM and Edwards' rivals blanketed the airways that Edwards would not support the Democratic Nominee in the General Election. Even Dodd got in a kick.

Yet much of this questionable 'interpretation' overlooked the circumstances, and ignored his attempt to clarify his answer later.

Edwards said what he said. Period. It was not an affirmative statement or averment that he would not support the Democratic Nominee in the General Election.

[CorpGovActivist]

39. Got a Video Link Handy?

I honestly dismissed the stories about Edwards' supposed "gaffe" on that issue, surmising that he's too loyal of an American and too loyal of a Democrat to have said anything near what the breathless headlines suggested.

(See? I really do apply that benefit of the doubt even-handedly to each of the candidates.)

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

42. I cannot find a video clip of Edwards quoted posted online, but Edwards did say this...

"I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee," Edwards said.

The question was thrown out in an informal way and the NY TIMES picked up on it to report that Edwards would not support the Democratic Nominee when Edwards said "I am not ready to answer that question right now."

Edwards could have answered the question better, but it was not a refusal to support the Democratic Nominee.

I can see how Edwards would be wary about such a question since it could have been framed "Edwards would support Hillary as the Democratic Nominee" --and Edwards is taking her on day in and day out.

I am sure he did not want to create any impression that he is giving up and will support Hillary.

But such is the MSM and its choice of candidates to promote.

[CorpGovActivist]

43. I Think You're Dead-On ...

... in the context of the campaign calendar, I made pretty much that assumption, rolled my eyes, and skipped the stories when I saw the headlines.

I pretty much said, "If he were to answer that he'd support her, that'd have been spun as him giving up."

- Dave

[demodonkey]

69. Would be nice if citizens could negotiate the court system WITHOUT lawyers...

...citizens pay for the court systems of course via their taxes, and there is supposed to be "justice for all". Sadly the courts were long ago set up to make pro se representation nearly impossible.

[Enrique]

18. even worse than the dishonesty of this post

is its stupidity.

And we make fun of Freepers? :eyes:

[Blackhatjack]

22. Explain how a video link to a quote makes this OP 'even worse than the dishonesty of this post'?

Really I guess some people want their own version of the truth.

[Enrique]

44. you have to watch two minutes to see that the quote was changed

totally dishonest

[Blackhatjack]

59. What was the quote 'changed from' and what was it 'changed to?"

I don't see anywhere on the video clip that Hillary's quote was 'changed.'

I saw where the quote was repeated. Is that what you mean?

[zbdent]

19. freeptard argument ... they always claimed that she was the one calling

the shots ... remember, they were saying she was going to run for President in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and they finally got it right for 2008 ...

[Oilwellian]

23. I'm not a Hillary fan but this is ridiculous

"That's what I'm gonna do as President, again focus on immigration..."

Commas really are important.

[Blackhatjack]

26. Hillary clearly paused after the word 'again'... not a comma before 'again' if reduced to writing

Sorry but I don't hear it the way you do.

[CorpGovActivist]

32. If Reduced to Writing, "again" Wouldn't Be in ALL CAPS

Sorry to bust your chops. I hope you know that I'm yanking your chain.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

37. That's why the 'best evidence' is the video itself since she did not hand out a printed statement

... but you have to admit the operative word in her spoken statement is 'again.'

As posters online are aware, ALL CAPS are used to draw the readers attention to a matter of importance.

[CorpGovActivist]

41. The Operative Word

Taking, for the sake of argument, that the operative word in the video clip is "again":

1. The word "again" is an adverb.

2. An adverb is "any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs, adjective, or other adverbs or adverbial phrases, and typically express time, place, manner, degree, etc., as 'very,' 'well,' 'now,' 'quickly'."

3. The operative word in that definition is "modifier[]."

4. "Misplaced modifiers" can - and do - form the basis of some of the funnier gaffes we all make.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=misplaced+modifier

So, did the word "again" refer to tackling the issue of immigration reform "again"? Did it refer to retaking the White House for Democrats "again"? Or did it refer to Hillary becoming President "again"?

In the preceding couple of sentences, she referenced - quite specifically - the recent failed attempt to tackle immigration reform on a Federal level. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to say that the word "again," placed in the context of the preceding few sentences of the clip, refers to the antecedent topic of tackling immigration reform, not to Hillary's Second Coming.

And yes, if I were on a jury, I'd have asked for a dictionary and a high school English text with examples of misplaced modifiers to walk the other jurors thru that little exercise if a corporate defense lawyer tried to sell a similar video gotcha as "proof".

; )

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

48. Without getting 'too deep in the weeds' here. THis is what lawyers know about 'words'...

Words have meaning between the parties which may not correspond to a dictionary definition. For example, 'You got the rent?' might actually mean 'You got the money to buy the drugs?"

Words are an insight into the motives, intentions, and mindset of the person using them. For example, when a person says 'Yes we are going to send over a couple of employees to help you find the rent you owe us', that could in fact be a veiled threat that the person is about to suffer physically for not paying the money owed for drugs previously delivered.

Words used by individuals often provide an insight into the thinking of a person and what they believe, even though the use of the words is inappropriate. Often referred to as a 'Freudian slip' sometimes people who are trying to keep certain information secret cannot help but express that same information publicly, even though that was not their intention.

So what do words actually mean? It is hard to say without more information. However the words used are a 'fact' that cannot be evaded or changed.

Think of words this way -- if you were painting a picture and the word 'again' was red, it would appear on the canvas. Without other colors we likely would not know exactly what to make of it. But if we have no other colors on the canvas yet, we still have red on the canvas --and that is an irrefutable fact. IT is often up to the attorney to provide the other colors that paint the rest of the picture for a jury --but it is up to the jury to determine what that picture represents.

[CorpGovActivist]

51. Hillary's Sending a Few Guys over...

... as "personal trainers" to "work you over good," BHJ.

:rofl:

You're too much.

- Dave

[RebelOne]

27. Oh, yeah, Sean Hannity caught that one.

He had an excuse to have a good laugh at Hillary yesterday on his radio show.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

53. CUTESYLAND nt

nt

[NNN0LHI]

63. Blackhatjack. You are making a mess of yourself here

Quit while you are behind.

Don

[Blackhatjack]

64. Oh come on. So some Clinton Backers are upset Hillary said this...I can take it.

The 'mountain out of a molehill workers' are hard at work trying to discredit that which has been captured on videotape.

As far as I can tell, that is about the size of it.

[ecstatic]

66. has anyone ever seen Bill and Hillary in the same room at the same time?

:shrug: :scared: :eyes: :rofl:

[Blackhatjack]

68. Who knows? It's reported they haven't lived together since she ran for Senate

I don't have a link for this, but I think it was a MSNBC story I heard this reported.

Of course, there are a growing number of married couples who do not live together in the same home. But their percentage is small.

I could understand that arrangement with her running for President and travelling all over the country. However, she was a Senator in N.Y. for a long time when they could have lived together.