Hoax quote collections: Quote mining Hillary Clinton

We’re past the political equinox in the political hemisphere (not to be confused with any real equinox anywhere), and we’re coming down to silly season in the presidential race. Soon the hoax quotes will start appearing in full breeding plumage, to be beaten to death by unsuspecting candidates who wish to instill fear in voters, and by partisans who would rather give a tweak to someone they don’t like, rather than get their facts straight.

Remember when the oral faux pas of former Vice President Dan Quayle went around the internet — attributed instead to Al Gore? Yeah, that’s the sort of bird we’ll see. (To be fair, we should note that some of the Quayle quotes are invented, and they were also attributed to George W. Bush, and then to John Kerry; watch for them sometime in 2008.)

How do I know the misquote mocking birds will sing? I’ve already seen one bird, with sightings claimed by dozens of non-thinkers in the blogside. Hillary Clinton’s victory at the 2008 Democratic Convention is so much assumed that people are already staking claims on quote mines, pulling out nuggets of disinformation. In one “quiz,” quotes are listed, and the reader — that would be you or me, Dear Reader — is asked to select who might have said the disgusting thought, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Nikita Kruschev, the Devil Himself (just kidding), or “None of the above.” Each quote’ s “correct” answer is then revealed to be “none of the above,” because Hillary Clinton said it.

SEn. Clinton at Iowa rally, January 2007 - Reuters photo

For those who may doubt, a date is attached to each “quote.”

  • Photo: Sen. Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally in Iowa, January 2007 – Reuters photo.

You can see this one coming from miles away: Clinton’s quotes are true quote mine nuggets, ripped out of context, disguised with odd dates and no other details, and edited so a discerning reader cannot track them down to expose the fraud by the makers of the quiz (who was identified as Neal Boortz in one piece I saw but I haven’t been able to find his version).

We’ll take a more rational, hoax-debunking view below the fold. You can bet that Hillary Clinton didn’t take the Idi Amin-Stalin-Mao-Hitler view. You can take that to the bank.

The quiz is introduced:

A little history lesson: If you don’t know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

A sane person with an active internet connection would immediately hit Google to find the quotes, right? The author of the quiz didn’t. Dozens of other internet forwarders also failed to check out the quotes, and the search engines are now clogged with the misquote answers.

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) “(We)…can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own…in order to create this common ground.”

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above


(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Notice that some of the quotes may not be all that bad — but the multiple choice offerings include most of the major totalitarian villains of the 20th century (with the possible exceptions of Dick Cheney and Fidel Castro). This is indictment by fellowship — if this person is seen in the company of Mao and Stalin, they must be bad, right? Sen. Clinton doesn’t have any association with these characters of history — it’s indictment by falsely alleged fellowship.

Look up “poisoning the well” as a rhetorical device. Worse, it’s

Okay, here are the facts:

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” 6/29/2004

This is part of a Rudolph Giuliani attack that becomes nastily in error by omitting the context. Sen. Clinton was speaking to a group of her contributors, wealthy people, who were the chief beneficiaries of the Bush reverse-Robin Hood tax cuts. Media Matters reported the Giuliani cheap shot and gave the Clinton quote in context:

On June 29, 2004, the Associated Press reported Clinton’s comments as follows:

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer [CA], who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters — some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend — to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

In short, Clinton was talking truth to rich people. Giuliani might learn from her example.

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.” 5/29/2007

This is a shared hit — both Mitt Romney and Giuliani have used it against Clinton. Both of them were unfair, and both should apologize. Larry Kudlow shouldn’t have let them get away with it on his show. Here’s what she said:

Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers, and give all people a chance to succeed.

How did Romney and Giuliani get it so wrong? Mrs. Clinton was calling for regulation to keep markets fair — things like antitrust rules. When she says that free markets are the greatest force for economic growth, shouldn’t the quiz creator acknowledge that?

Here’s a greater context:

CLINTON: It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an “on your own” society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a “we’re all in it together” society.

Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers, and give all people a chance to succeed.

When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.

Clinton further stated: “I believe that our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

The complete speech is a ringing endorsement of good education, innovation in education, and fair government regulation to prevent the creation of Robber Barons. Robber Barons create conditions that catalyze socialist reactions from average citizens. It sounds to me that Clinton knows her stuff, and that Romney and Giuliani could use a revisit to the Boy Scout Law and basic high school economics.

3) “(We)…can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” 6/4/2007

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own…in order to create this common ground.” 6/4/2007

5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.” 6/4/2007

Those three quotes come from the same date. Same speech?

Not a speech after all, but an appearance on CNN. David Emery, at About.com’s Urban Legends site, reveals the full context. (Emery debunked an earlier version of the quote collection, without the quiz format — it’s worth a read just to see how this hoax on Hillary has morphed.)

What is shocking in these is the extent of the butchery to Sen. Clinton’s words. As posed, the three statements make Sen. Clinton out to be a Marxist. But some dastard has edited out most of what Mrs. Clinton said — this quote as presented is not even up to the par of ransom notes cut out of magazine ads. Here’s what Sen. Clinton said, from the transcript — Emery has put the words quoted in the quiz in italics; I’ll color them blue; Clinton is talking about our health care crisis, and about crises in environmental issues:

I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact.

So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground.

The same with energy — you know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation, and just let business as usual go on.”

O’BRIEN: Senator…

CLINTON: And that means something has…


CLINTON: to be taken away from some people.

Notice the long, black text strings between the blue of the quoted material. The whole truth?

Anybody ought to be able to figure out that when a politician says “business as usual,” it’s an indictment of some condition currently existing, and that there will be a proposal for change. The quiz maker is counting on profound gullibility in people to think they might imagine Sen. Clinton is talking about “business” as private free enterprise, and not the “business as usual” of politicians who mention crises but do nothing about them.

Who are the people who may have to give up something? She’s already identified them as the rich; she’s already called for shared sacrifice for greater prosperity, again shared. These are solid democratic themes every flag-waving American should endorse.

The third quote, #5 on the quiz, is from the same television appearance. She’s not talking economics so much here — the issue is abortion. She’s saying that the free market has failed to provide opportunities for women that would cause the women to forego abortion. Here’s the quote:

We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make.

And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed.

We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally. And, so, I think there is a great opportunity. But it would require sort of a — a leaving at the sides the suspicion and the baggage that comes with people who have very strong, heartfelt feelings.

Now ask yourself: Would you contradict her on this point? Can you make an argument that the free market has done all it could, and all that is necessary, to reduce demand for abortion? Unless you think abortion rates are as low as they can go, you agree with Sen. Clinton.

This sort of strip quoting, where words are used on a totally different topic, is particularly low. It’s the sort of stuff that gets junior high school debate teams disqualified from tournaments. It has no place in presidential politics.

The last question on the faux quiz:

6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.” 9/2/2005

First, let me ask you to recall how Harry Truman rose to prominence in the U.S. Senate. Do you know the story at all? During World War II — a great national emergency — Sen. Truman was appointed to head a commission to look at government contracts. His commission smoked out people and companies who were taking advantage of the government, our soldiers in combat, and American taxpayers, by profiteering from their war business. The investigations led to several contract cancellations, to a popular call for higher morality in business, and eventually to the Defense Production Act of 1950, after Truman succeeded to the presidency, which included tough standards against profiteering. President Truman explained:

No one should be permitted to profiteer at the expense of others because of our defense needs. Nobody should get rich out of this emergency.

On September 2, 2005, Sen. Clinton was speaking to a group in upstate New York, in Syracuse, in the weeks immediately following the opening of the Hurricane Katrina Disaster. Someone in the audience asked what she thought about profiteering — gasoline was being sold for more than $4.00/gallon to hurricane refugees (refugees of Rita as well as Katrina). Oil companies reported record profits at about the same time. Sen. Clinton, as did most Americans, suspected there was hanky-panky somewhere along the supply pipeline. She worried about profiteering, as Harry Truman had done earlier, and she suggested the Federal Trade Commission had better look into it and stop any wrongdoing found; the Washington Post reported the event:

I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they’re being watched. I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that’s what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage.

Who among us does not think that the rules of the economic game should be fair, especially to people fleeing a natural disaster of epic proportions? Who would argue against a “level playing field?”

It’s an interesting quiz. It reveals a quiz author with a pathological distaste for the facts, an extreme hatred of Hillary Clinton that spills over into hatred for Americans who vote, with an extreme cynicism that the voters can be lied to, and that the voters can easily be fooled.

You were not fooled, though, were you? Good on you, as Molly Ivins would have said.

Watch out for other hoaxes. There are a lot of people out there hoping Barnum was right.

Other resources:

Dishonor roll:

Those who pushed the bait though they should have known better*:

* I was thinking a more appropriate name for this list would be the L.S.O.S. List. But some children read the blog. Think of the children — it’s more than these blogs and websites did.

32 Responses to Hoax quote collections: Quote mining Hillary Clinton

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Jenn: P.S. — What’s the proper way to deal with people who lie to your face? Maybe they deserve an actual punch in the nose. Isn’t a touch of sarcasm much more civil? Why don’t you kick about those who insult you by falsehood?


  2. Ed Darrell says:

    Right here. Sarcasm doesn’t affect accuracy. My intentional bias towards accuracy in citation, and in not editing statements of others to make them into straw man liars, is intentional, and honorable, I think.

    (P.S.: Did you notice the links? Don’t take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.)

    Thanks for dropping by. Holler if you find any errors.


  3. Jenn says:

    Seems like thorough work. Too bad the bias and sarcasm renders it clearly partisan and therefore impossible to trust. Where o where can folks just find the facts, without the spin and snarky commentary?


  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Putting lipstick on the piggy lies of anti-Democratic, and anti-democracy plutocrats, malcontents and thugs, does not make them human beings, either.


  5. You can put lipstick on a pig but that does not make it a woman!


  6. […] Neil Boortz, the Georgia-based radio broadcaster, goes beyond irresponsible journalism.  After we caught Boortz spreading false tales about Hilary Clinton last year, I proceeded to ignore […]


  7. […] the Bathtub, we’ve already sampled a crude and steady attempt to brand Hillary Clinton a Marxist with creative editing of a few of her […]


  8. Ed Darrell says:

    Marx as George Washington would have loved him, yes.

    If one must lie to make one’s point, one has already lost the moral high ground. Marx loved his children — that doesn’t make loving one’s children a Marxist thing to do, or a bad thing to do. Suggesting that a person is “a Marxist” for having loved her children is scurrilous calumny, and false witness.

    Let’s keep the discussion on a higher plane, shall we?


  9. Kerry says:

    You can kiss the marxist butt all you want. The truth is, she was advocating marxist ideals, no matter if they were EXACT quotes or not.


  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Anyone who believes that the market is an angel needs to read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.


  11. FACT: The free market works best and is most fair when it is left alone. Period.
    FACT: The only “fair trade” is Free Trade. Period.

    Anyone who contradicts the above two facts needs to drop the communist manifesto in the garbage, take a match and lighter fluid to the works of Keans, and start studying Austrian Economics.

    Anyone who believes in government regulation should be voted OUT of office.


  12. ANN JARVIZ says:

    wat a stupid woman can get her way out and promote racism that is not good at all we are all equal


  13. cherikooka says:

    I can appreciate all the work that went into this posting. Regardless of everyone’s opinion, I think this is really, really well done.


  14. Elvis says:

    Quoting without a valid source is always a dangerous business to prove anything. Why? Quoting, by itself, is always out of context with everything else that was said. Words are often misleading. Examination of behavior is far more accurate.


  15. […] can help out, with comments.  For example, right now the post on the hoax quiz on Hillary Clinton quotes is hotter’n a three-dollar pistol — but no one’s commenting.  I can’t tell where the hits are coming from.   It […]


  16. Ed Darrell says:

    Excuse me? Did you read my post?

    Did you read the conclusion of the piece you cited, AntiObama?

    So is Hillary Clinton advocating communism? Hardly. The masked e-mailer hopes you might think so after reading a political tyrants’ Hall of Fame list alongside truncated quotes about taking things away and the collective good.

    We give the mock quiz a failing grade, with extra points deducted for unabashed fearmongering. Its argument that Clinton advocates Marxism is not just False, it’s Pants-on-Fire wrong.


  17. AntiObama says:

    Funny that you “proved” that her quotes are “false”, but in fact they are true. You make emotionalist and non-sequitur arguments “proving” that they are legitimate.

    She said them. Look here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/221/


  18. Ed Darrell says:

    Well, if you think advocating capitalism is advocating communism instead, no, there’s nothing wrong — in your view.

    But it’s false to suggest that Sen. Clinton is advocating socialism. She’s not. It’s a misrepresentation of her economic views. When Sen. Clinton talks about the amazing failure of the Bush administration’s “abstinence only” sex education plan, her words are misrepresented as applying to economics. Is it possible to be more dishonest in politics? (Tracking shows that the abstinence only plans are failing nationwide. Teenage pregnancies took a blip up this year, the first in — what? — 20 years or so.) Urging a free market in sex education is a rather wacky idea in the first place — but in this “quiz,” you don’t get anything to tell you that Sen. Clinton is addressing this incredible failure of the Republicans. You call that fair?

    You don’t think that’s a hoax? In what other areas do you disavow fair play and honesty.

    If you say, “No, thank you, I would not like another piece of cake,” and I tell people that when I asked if you were faithful to yoru spouse and you said “No . . . I would like another piece . . .” the words would be yours. But I would be lying.

    That’s the style of the hoax here. Mrs. Clinton is a longtime supporter of free markets, and quite savvy on economic issues. This quiz does not present her views on economics at all.

    Or, is it okay with you if I tell that story on you? They ARE your words, after all . . .

    Here, look at a slightly different quiz — it’s fair, too, right?


  19. びっくり says:

    Funny that you call the people hoaxers and promise to prove the quotes are false, yet as far as I could tell you were also attributing the quotes to Hillary. (I didn’t read all the way through because it was getting extremely lengthy and redundant. There’s something to be said for concise writing.)

    Also amusing was your suggestion that there is something wrong with listing villains in the multiple choice answers. The writer was making it easy for the reader to draw their own connection. If Hillary’s quotes didn’t sound like they could be attributed to any of these people, then everyone would get 100 percent correct by choosing none of the above. If her words sound like things that abhorrent characters would say, then…


  20. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s not a question of trusting Hillary. If she’s untrustworthy, that will come out in the campaign. And if that’s so, it’s not necessary to make up whole cloth lies to tell about her.

    But this quiz suggests you shouldn’t trust her — can you be sure that the information you’re relying on is not made up? Can you be sure you are not the victim of these hoaxers? How are you sure?

    Your reaction is exactly what the hoaxers want. If you can be misled, so can others. So are others.

    To what end?


  21. retro says:

    As much as I’d like to see a woman president, I don’t trust Hillary as far as I can throw her.


  22. […] Sticking by the error Neil Boortz has a bottomless well of venom. Boortz appears to be the chief source of the mean-spirited, cut-from-whole-cloth fables about Hillar…. […]


  23. Ed Darrell says:

    Not just Jesus — notice I said Jesus and Buddha. Nor did I limit it to Hillary.

    Bill Bradley’s refusal to use tax shelters when he signed with the Knicks is a great story, for example.

    It’s less of a stretch than comparing her to Mao ze Dong.


  24. Cherie says:

    Wow, so now we’re comparing Hillary’s record to Christ’s. Good luck with that one!


  25. Ed Darrell says:

    So why do I mention all this? Because Hillary’s quotes whether taken out of context or not are all part of a new image she wants to create to get elected, yes, I know, all the politicians do it, but her past is so clouded with illegal doings that it is impossible for me to believe anything she says now anyways.

    That’s a pretty radical thing to say, and also wildly inaccurate. I don’t know your father. I do know that there was a multi-year investigation that spent nearly $60 million to try to pin anything illegal on either of the Clintons. It was mean spirited, and it viciously went after every allegation about wrongdoing by either of the Clintons.

    Nothing. No indictments. Not even a warning.

    Do you really expect me to believe that more than 100 Republican lawyers tasked with pinning something on the Clintons, with $60 million and a half decade to do it, with subpoena power, were just hopelessly incompetent, and that your father, based on rumors and innuendo, has the real story?

    There are levels of psychotic denialism. This story, that the Clintons are crooks, is at the deepest level.

    Does Hillary believe the average American ignorant? I’ll wager you can’t find her saying that. It’s contrary to what she wrote in her book about child raising (you guys really need to figure out which wild fantasy about Hillary you want to stick with, because, as all lies ultimately do, they contradict reality and themselves at some point). Hillary wrote that people can do great things, like raising children. For years tin-hat conservatives have tried to debunk her community- and family-based advice about “it takes a village to raise a child.” Now you claim she believes the opposite?


    If it were not Hillary, you’d be railing at John Edwards’ being a lawyer. That his lawyering got a nice award for a kid who had her guts sucked out by a swimming pool never gets mentioned (she survived). The tin-hat conservatives would have us believe no kid ever got harmed, but Edwards was so slick-tongued that he misled judges and juries for years.

    If it were not Clinton and Edwards, you’d be railing at Barack Obama. How could anyone with a middle name of Kevin Hussein (easy mistake — same name in different languages) ever be a real American? Obama can’t be real, you’d argue. He’s really taking advantage of the black vote (though he doesn’t have much of it yet), he’s really taking advantage of poor people (though he alone among candidates has spent significant amounts of time working with and for poor people as a full-time project). He’s a carpet bagger, though of course to make that case we have to ignore that his record in the Ivy League was much better than Clarence Thomas’s record.

    I weary of the false charges, the mean tirades accusing these people of wrong-doing when they have records that would make Buddha and Jesus jealous, in some cases.

    Hillary Clinton is an extremely bright woman, a great leader who has spent much of the past 40 years, quietly, as a national leader in advocacy for children. On that score alone she merits admiration and respect. And that’s just one area of policy.

    That you fail to mention that at all suggests to me your view is not only not based in fact, but is extremely biased.

    Who else is out there running? Lots of good people. Who do you think the tin-hat people will slander next?


  26. I find the listing of the quotes biased but not as biased as stated by Ed Darrel. I did receive this questionare and did Google each comment separately. About 50% I found fully misleading the other 50% scare me abit.

    If either of you gentleman are that interested in Hilary Clinton I suggest you research both her and Bill’s past in Arkansas. During this time of Bill’s frequent infidelities (well known and documented) there were also several issues regarding drugs and drug lords. I cannot find much on it anymore other then the usual overly exaggerated web version of events. I mention this because, my father, who is much more knowledgeable then myself in this kind of area, knew about Bill’s run ins before the web was even popular. Unfortunately it’s too difficult for me to determine fact from fiction now. I do however trust my father, mainly because he is faster to debunk gossip whether it is about somone he agrees with or not.

    So why do I mention all this? Because Hillary’s quotes whether taken out of context or not are all part of a new image she wants to create to get elected, yes, I know, all the politicians do it, but her past is so clouded with illegal doings that it is impossible for me to believe anything she says now anyways.

    In conclusion, Hillary’s lies and immoral history started long before any of these quotes were made and then subsequently clipped and cropped for what I regard as a foolish questionare to begin with. Hillary is not
    A. Karl Marx
    B. Lenin
    C. Molotov
    A. Pinochet
    B. Milosevic
    C. Saddam Hussein
    A. Mao Tse Dung
    B. Hugo Chavez
    C. Kim Jong Il

    She is much scarier, at least these individuals stated their position, and some, if not all, believed in them. Hillary believes the average American is ignorant and she knows better then any of us how we should be treated and will state whatever is necessary to get elected while her true beliefs and feelings are only known to her and by her. Why did the answers to issues in Arkansas not get answered publically and clearly? If you feel these issues are off base, think of it this way, would you argue with Hitler if he were still alive about economics or be so caught up in the knowledge of his persecution of the jews that his views on economics would be valueless to you. They would be valueless to me, as are any quotes from Hillary Clinton, because of her past. People do not change much with time, you’d have to believe a felon deserves a run at the presidency (illegal BTW) in my opinion, to give her any credibility.

    In conclusion, these quotes mean nothing, she is not deserving of anyones respect for what she has done in the past!

    So who else is running anyways!


  27. Ed Darrell says:


    1. It’s clear from the content and all the news stories that in the first quote Sen. Clinton indeed intends to deny tax cuts to her wealthy contributors. You assume an ignoble affinity there where she directly and clearly denounces it. The abuse of this quote at your blog is ironic precisely for that reason. She speaks plainly to her moneyed supporters telling them they should pay more. I fail to see why you won’t concede her main point.

    Even were she insincere, which your reading requires, her urging a more fair, graduated taxation scheme is essentially American, counter to the robber-baron-loving, “you got yours and screw the middle class” view of the current regime. That’s why the comments were reported in the first place.

    2. State sanctioned ends? All good policies from government are “state sanctioned ends.” The question you fail to deal with is whether her advocated policies are noble or effective. Her advocacy of “shared responsibility for shared prosperity” is notable for its call for participation by all, but in effect appeals to Ronald Reagan’s “rising tide lifts all boats” idea.

    In short, if you reject what she’s saying there, you reject most of the values that this nation is built on, that we value liberty and opportunity, and that we value the responsibilities of citizenship and recognize them as duties, as well as our love of freedom. She’s emphasizing the responsibilities of citizens, not just the privileges of rich citizens. It’s difficult for me to see why the author included this quote in there, since she embraces so much of American values in the speech.

    If you disagree with Sen. Clinton, it’s probably time to think about moving to a more friendly climate — one where bribes carry more weight than ideas and representative government.

    Here’s the original speech — tell us which parts you disagree with, the call for education, or the call for fairness, or the call for greater prosperity:

    3. In this quote, Clinton says simply we can’t talk climate change to death; if we wish to preserve our economy and environment, we have to do something. She’s absolutely correct here. We’re talking about air pollution, chiefly. Air pollution should be reduced, because it kills us unfairly and prematurely. Air pollution is a net drain on our prosperity. Talking about air pollution does nothing. There’s no way to weasel out of this one — your advocacy of inaction in the face of crisis is irresponsible.

    4. Calling for political consensus, and for the hard work to achieve it, is good leadership. Once again, inaction on this issue has only led to much more rapid inflation of cost and rapid erosion of our ability to deliver care. Clinton is calling for action. If you think we have the best, and most inexpensive health care in the world, argue your case.

    Lying about what Sen. Clinton said, however, makes no case either way. You’re just fuzzing up the issues.

    5. Is Clinton saying media carry messages that confuse young people and muddle this discussion? Absolutely.

    Do you disagree?

    Clinton is at least not hypocritical about it, on two fronts. First, while she bemoans the licentiousness and lack of quality in commercial media, she at least supports good programming, in stark contrast to Bush and the Republicans who have had the long knives out to get Big Bird for 30 years. Bush’s response has been to whine about the issues and seek Big Brother responses, in almost every case. It’s highly ironic that in contrast to Bush, you’d complain about Clinton’s free market approach.

    Second, Bush has opposed providing effective means to reduce teenaged, out-of-wedlock sex and pregnancy from the start, on some odd philosophical ground that suggests Americans are too stupid to do anything other than have Big Brother monitor them. Clinton has consistently stood for giving solid information to people who have the power to make the decisions. Bush’s lying about the effectiveness of condoms isn’t working. It’s time to tell the truth.

    Lying about Sen. Clinton’s approach on any issue is a bad sign in a campaign where lies have been the official policy, and the wrong policy, for the entire Bush administration.

    6. Clinton isn’t threatening price controls. She’s asking for enforcement of anti-gouging rules. Again, Clinton calls for fairness, for the use of free-market preserving mechanisms we’ve developed in the last 100 years. You call for a return to robber barons, and you urge that we trust the convicted robbers. Nuts.

    Finally, nothing you’ve argued on policy excuses your dishonest claims about what Clinton said. A lie is a lie. We need greater morality and greater information in public discussion, more honesty not less.


  28. Ed Darrell says:

    My experience with Mrs. Clinton is much different from what you describe, Michael. I’ve found her to be passionate about noble causes, and like many people who push organizations to great things, often impatient with the rates of change and organizational politics that slow things down. What you describe as “foul-mouthed tantrum thrower” is regarded as great leadership in Lee Iacocca and Robert Crandall; she doesn’t have the dark side of leaders like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.


  29. Michael Spurlock says:

    Sorry, but this is itself sophistry, because this nothing but a subset of quotes.
    The truth, which IS verifiable, is far more frightening and disgusting. She’s a foul-mouthed tantrum-thrower with delusions of monarchy.


  30. Brendan Halfweeg says:

    Quoting Hilary Clinton in context makes her statements even more scary. In every case she is re-emphasising her belief in using state coercion to achieve ends her and her followers support.

    Quote 1: Surely Hilary wasn’t simply going to deny tax cuts to those attending her fund raiser. I’m sure she is an equal opportunity high taxing Democrat.

    Quote 2: Sounds Hilary wants use markets to achieve state sanctioned ends. You may own what you own, but you may only use it if the state approves. Whose values? Democrats values? What if I’m not a Democrat?

    Quote 3: In or out of context, this is just a silly quote by Hilary, but in her Chicken Little (“The Sky is Falling”) moment or foreign oil and global warming, her response is to take something away from some people, without specifying what she is going to restrict, and from whom. Must do something, even if she can’t define what is to be done or to whom it is to be done. Use the state to achieve unclear goals and basically control people.

    Quote 4: Hilary’s response to people not agreeing with her on healthcare is to discount her opponents by declaring a need for consensus on the problem she has defined and the solution she proposes. This ignores the fact that many disagree with her solution and to whether she has identified the real problem at all.

    Quote 5: This is just funny. It is as if the unrestricted trade in goods and services (the “free market”) is something sentient, and is conscious and responsible for the confusion that young adults face when making decisions about sex. What exactly does the market have to do with young people making decisions about contraception? This is just good old blame free enterprise and the media for the failure of parents to pass on to their children sufficient knowledge to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

    Quote 6: If Hilary is threatening the petrol retail business with price controls, she’ll be doing the victims of disaster the worst possible service. Price rises during disasters ensure efficient use of resources and ensures that those resources will be supplied in the first place. Disaster zones are by definition dangerous areas, and if people are going to supply goods and services in them, they are going to want to be reqarded for the risks that they face. Prevent them from being compensated, and they will simply stop the provision of their services.

    A fair exchange is one where both parties benefit. If you hand over $4 a gallon for gas, you get the gas which you need, and the vendor gets compensated for staying open, for convincing tanker drivers to deliver fuel into a disaster zone.

    If you want to remember what price controls are capable of, just look at the fuel queues of the 1970s and the availablity of affordable housing in rent controlled cities like New York.


  31. […] Hoax quote collections: Quote mining Hillary Clinton […]


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: