Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Spin

April 27, 2007 5:58 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, had a pretty good night at the first Democratic debate Thursday night.

But that's apparently not enough for her campaign. Earlier today her spinners sent out a memo saying: "CAMPAIGN MEMO: COMMANDER IN CHIEF"

"With the first debate of the 2008 presidential campaign now completed, one fact is abundantly clear: Hillary Clinton showed that she is ready to be President of the United States."

Now, you can believe that or not, but here's how her spinners prove their point: "Last night, Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked."

They then quoted her thusly:  "Having been a senator during 9/11, I understand the extraordinary horror of that kind of attack. I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. That doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. Let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them."

I agree that Clinton gave a decent response to that question -- especially compared with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, who had to re-answer the question -- but, again, that doesn’t seem to have been enough for her campaign.

Because that paragraph is NOT what she said.

Here's what Clinton actually said:  "Having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected. I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond. Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them."

As pointed out by my pal John Dickerson writing as Slate (LINK), you'll notice, first of all, that the Clinton campaign -- quite misleadingly -- did NOT provide ellipses that would indicate her comments had been edited. That's a bit dishonest.

Now…let's look…What did they edit out?

1) Her sounding less than decisive, as with this sentence chock full o' qualifiers:  "If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond."

2) Her praise of President Bush: "You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan."

3) Her claim that if she'd been president she wouldn’t have led the country to war in Iraq -- a war, you may recall, that she voted for.  "And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden."

Pretty slippery stuff.

-- jpt

April 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8)

User Comments

Mr. Tapper, as with so many of your colleagues, you distort and misrepresent certain politicians at your convenience. Media Matters has called you out, as have some commenters here, on your misrepresentation of Hillary Clinton's supposed "vote for the war", which, if you had taken the time as a journalist to do, was not what she authorized. Before making rash statements that have no basis in fact, it is best to have facts to back up your comments. Clearly you are stating your BIAS here, rather than making an objective observation. We are getting into dangerous territory when journalists use the newfound tool of the blog to hold forth an agenda that should never be a part of a reporter's repetoire. I hope you will take the time to do a little research before you make incorrect statements.
Here is the Media Matters link which goes through in detail your false interpretation of what Hillary Clinton voted for...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705010006?f=h_top
Look at it...and if you can refute it, we are all waiting.

Posted by: Murton | May 2, 2007 1:23:39 AM

I agree with cordelia.

Posted by: Heather | May 1, 2007 7:44:23 PM

Dear Mr. Tapper,

I do not recall that Senator Clinton voted for a war in Iraq. I recall that the Senator voted to give President Bush authority to make sure that that the U.N. Security Council resolutions were enforced concerning Iraq.

President Bush never asked the Congress for an official declaration of war. There is no reason to think that Senator Clinton or many other senators would have manipulated intelligence to provide a cassus belli for the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: The Minotaur | May 1, 2007 5:16:09 PM

Well, one can deconstruct and edit the Senator's comments as much as one wants, but she still appeared to be in command of the facts and about as decisive as any candidate running for political office can be. We're used to such qualifiers and even praise in passing for someone who now doesn't deserve any.

Posted by: chuck | Apr 30, 2007 9:04:20 AM

Clinton's people didn't change the wording of her speech; they just used parts of it for brevity's sake. It's called "highlighting".

You reporters and journalists must be really hard up for a good story!!

Get a grip.

Posted by: Amanda Bart | Apr 29, 2007 11:19:01 PM

Having done extremely well in the debate, I would be more concerned if she DIDN'T promote her success. But then, I've never been intimidated by smart and confident women.

Posted by: JoeCHI | Apr 28, 2007 11:46:11 AM

I don't see that as slippery at all. It's an absolutely fair representation of what she said.

And for the record, Hillary killed it the other night. Killed it. After so many years of being the smartest one in the room but stuck in her husband's shadow, it's nice to see her step out of that shadow, on a national stage, and make lunchmeat of her male opponents.

Posted by: cordelia525 | Apr 28, 2007 10:21:00 AM

If we could harness all the "slippery" we see in the next 500 or so days oil dependence would be a thing of the past.

Posted by: flyover | Apr 27, 2007 6:59:32 PM

Post a comment