October 27, 2014

Hillary Clinton explains her strange statement: "Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs."

"I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades."

Like it's our fault we don't know what she meant. How many times does she have to tell us? She's been talking so long — for a couple of decades — that we ought to know everything she has to say. We should be completing sentences for her... like a doting, faithful old husband.

120 comments:

Rob said...

From the bottom up and middle out? This is the considered restatement? WTF does that mean?

rhhardin said...

Corporations and businesses don't create jobs if you regulate them enough.

pm317 said...

Hillary is trying to play to the Obama crowd and I have no idea why but it is a mistake. She should put country before party and act that way if she wants to get ahead with 2016. What is more sad is that the other woman, Warren thinks she is presidential material and Obama crowd concurs.

The Drill SGT said...

She was at a Coakley rally with Fauxahontas and wanted to out Warren, Warren with that populist Jive.

It's early in the cycle for the LIV's to notice, but the money guys will.

Hagar said...

As long as she has been in the business, and she still makes this kind of rookie mistakes?

Original Mike said...

I heard a report today that one of her sycophants, when asked if businesses don't create jobs where do they come from?, replied "jobs just open up and people apply for them."

Rhythm and Balls said...

Penis!

RecChief said...

hillary Clinton has to lie and backtrack because she got pushback when she let the curtain slip.

FIFY

Jess said...

I'm thinking her party is beginning the first stages of panic, after realizing one of their star prospective candidates suffers from the problems of head trauma.

Michael K said...

Hillary has been around so long that we can finish her sentences for her, just like a long suffering husband. That is her problem.

AReasonableMan said...

Don't be deceived boys, this is fool neutrality.

Joe Schmoe said...

Remember when the media so quickly and understandably gave Mitt Romney a chance to clarify his 47% remark?

Me neither.

Bob Ellison said...

I took part in creating a few jobs. The people who took those jobs helped create more. The people who took those more jobs were job-takers and job-creators. We all took part and created together.

What an asshole Hillary is!

CatherineM said...

Let me be clear!

Sam L. said...

She assumes...and as we know, disassembling assume makes an ass of u and me.

David said...

Hillary was just playing to the crowd. At least she wasn't trying to fake a african american accent again.

The problem with Hillary is that she nearly always plays to the crowd. The exception to that rule is when she lies to the crowd.

The other dirty secret is that she isn't all that smart. Not stupid, mind you, but a lifetime of political posturing does dull the intellect. For her at least.

Bob Ellison said...

Joe Schmoe said, "Remember when the media so quickly and understandably gave Mitt Romney a chance to clarify his 47% remark?"

Mitt was correct on the 47% remark. That's why there was no chance to clarify. It was a pretty good piece of phone video, overall.

That's why it's powerful. There's truth in it. 47% can't be reached by conservative principles, because they're slaves to the state.

David said...

Hillary thinks that the sun rises in the morning because she crows.

ddh said...

She's been talking so long — for a couple of decades — that we ought to know everything she has to say.

Hillary
ought to know everything she has to say.

SteveR said...

She's really not a good retail politician, but she's been anointed, perhaps people will start paying attention.

Big Mike said...

She can't get a line from a stump speech out right without clarification, and she thinks she can run the federal government? Haven't we had enough gaffes and statements that need clarification just with Joe Biden, much less than she-who-would-be-president?

Hey Dumbocrats! The next president has a Hell of a lot of cleaning up to do. How about you nominate someone who can clean up your mess? Or just admit that we grownups will have to clean it up and don't bother to field a candidate.

Anonymous said...

"... like a doting, faithful old husband."
You mean Bill?

MadisonMan said...

not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas

We being the Democratic and Republican parties, both.

pm317 said...

May be we should elect a non-politician this time around. So be it if Hillary is not politician enough or fumbles and can't deliver the lines the liberals so want to hear. Would you rather have another teleprompter-in-chief that liberals have endorsed? Liberals (like that idiot Maher) think she is a hawk and a centrist and her husband a moderate Republican.

BDNYC said...

She was anointed in 2008.

I predict she'll be surprised again by an insurgent primary challenger.

chillblaine said...

I remember a big reason Althouse voted for Obama was because "McCain doesn't understand economics." Hillary's economic illiteracy could fill volumes. I wonder what she would say if someone asked her how to solve the problem of corporations 'stashing their profits overseas?'

With Democrats, it's all driven by the demand side and broken windows fallacies, and there is no such thing as over-regulation.

Quaestor said...

"Don't let anybody tell you..." and "What difference does it make..." will destroy Clinton. She may be riding high now, but her self-inflicted wounds will bleed for the next two years, drop by cerise drop. By convention time in 2016 she'll be a bloodless corpse politically.

Gahrie said...

I predict she'll be surprised again by an insurgent primary challenger.

The scarest thing about that sentence is that Warren is the most likely candidate to take her on.

While Warren would probably be more competent, that just makes it worse because she's slightly to the left of Lenin.......

Bob R said...

The thing that gets me is that this is such an applause line. Warren, Obama, HRC have all calculated that it is to their advantage to say this stuff. As "anti-science" as anything coming out of the deepest swamps of the red states.

Joe Schmoe said...

Bob Ellison, I respectfully disagree. Mitt was technically correct in saying 47% didn't owe any federal income taxes, but he was wildly inaccurate in lumping everyone in that group together. Sure, some of that group is looking for government handouts, but there are many, many others who are looking to improve their lot in life by making more money. Romney should have offered hope to those people; hope in the form of better jobs and lower taxes. And actual lower health-care costs achieved through market-based solutions.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

"middle out" was the breakthrough insight that brought Pied Piper the coveted trophy at TechCrunch, so don't knock it.

F said...

When Hillary made this statement I read it and thought she had finally gone around the bend. Then I heard an audio clip of the statement and I could tell from the intonation that this was said in a pandering fashion. Just like her address to the black audience where she slipped into gullah, or her TV ad during the 2008 primary where she played the part of Santa giving out gifts, there is no mistaking that tone in her voice. It screams "I'll give you something, anything, if you'll elect me."

Phil 3:14 said...

Elect me already because I'm... err,
I mean we're due!

Paul said...

Hillary is a lying curr.

We all saw the film. She not absent minded. She did not betray any sign of confusion. She did not show any hint that what she said didn't sound right.

She is to the LEFT of Obama.

Remember that folks in two years.

JPS said...

Oh yeah, she's been saying for decades.

Like 20-odd years ago, when someone asked her whether her healthcare plan wasn't going to plow under every fourth small business in the country, and she said,

"I can't be expected to go out and save every undercapitalized small business in the country."

Yep. Go out and save them. That's just what we were asking you to do, ma'am.

What a fine president she'd make.

Curious George said...

She's right...when Democrats run things.

Titus said...

I wasn't aware that Wisconsin hasn't voted for a republican president since 1984-wow.

I like the fact that Wisconsin is so unique in voting patterns-voting for Walker twice and then voting for lesbian Tammy Walker against a popular governor

Bob Ellison said...

Joe Schmoe, you are correct.

RecChief said...

MadisonMan said...
not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas

We being the Democratic and Republican parties, both.


tax reform would fix some of this. But tell me, as far as outsourcing jobs, how does American labor compete with $10 per day labor in China? How does the labor market tighten in this country when millions of non-citizens are allowed, illegally, to enter the work force? Most of those millions aren't computer programmers or some other job that requires a higher education, most are unskilled labor, which directly affects those at the bottom of our labor ladder the most. So how does that get addressed? Identifying the problem is only the first step.

RecChief said...

chillblaine said...
I remember a big reason Althouse voted for Obama was because "McCain doesn't understand economics." Hillary's economic illiteracy could fill volumes


That doesn't really matter to our hostess. In the next election, Hillary's body parts will trump everything else.

RecChief said...

While Warren would probably be more competent, that just makes it worse because she's slightly to the left of Lenin.......


Warren has never been an executive. of anything, not even the law firms she affirmative actioned herself into.

AJ Lynch said...

Rush was playing the Lizsie Warren tapes / screeds today.

I don't know which is scarier, uglier and more hateful: Warren or her political beliefs.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Faithful? Faithfull? Yeah...

AReasonableMan said...

I see a bad pattern developing here. Althouse will write some slightly negative things about Clinton. You guys will respond with some over the top bitchin' and moanin' and slowly a beautiful friendship will be torn apart. Submit now to Hillary. Submit and make peace with your fate. You know it's gonna happen.

JPS said...

ARM:

"Submit now to Hillary….You know it's gonna happen."

I've been wrong before, but - I doubt it.

Just a feeling, best captured by then-candidate Obama's patronizing and entirely insincere, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

No, she's not - not to anyone who doesn't already love her. If she had a record of success to run on, that might put her over the top. But to her supporters, her amazing record is that of being elected or appointed to prestigious and powerful jobs. What she did while in them is beside the point.

AJ Lynch said...

ARM- don't sweat it; the Professor will vote for Hillary.

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah Hillary, to paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen: "I knew Huey Long. He was a friend of mine. He could tell Louisiana voters low Cockahirum in one end of the state and tell other voters high Cockalowrun at the other end of the state on the same day. And they all, including ol Huey, would believe he was telling the absolute truth.'

Well Hillary, as Bentsen and I might say, "You're no Huey Long".

Gahrie said...

Warren has never been an executive. of anything, not even the law firms she affirmative actioned herself into.

Which means she has no record. We've seen Hillary in action. Surely Warren has to be more competent.

Barry Dauphin said...

Is this anything like the reset button?

Alex said...

No doubt Althouse will find a way to justify her vote for Hitlery due to Rubio's stance on abortion or whatever.

Bud Throckmorton said...

What's a Coakley rally?

Jum said...

Up...but of course everyone knows what I meant was down.

Annie said...

For twenty years she's been saying the same marxist crap she's spouting now.

Same crap, different day.

SteveR said...

I found enough bad about Hillary by about 1988 to ever consider her for any political office. She let her husband cuckold her and obviously didn't care. Whatever her motivation, that doesn't speak well of her. Sorry, and it doesn't speak well of anyone who would vote for her.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Barack Obama botched his campaign appearance for Martha Coakley in the 2010 special election. Now Hillary Clinton has botched hers in 2014. Makes you wonder if they are doing it on purpose.

Annie said...

We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton, 6/29/2004

We ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people. - Hillary Clinton, 6/4/2007

richard mcenroe said...

From the bottom up and middle out? This is the considered restatement? WTF does that mean?

TWIRLING, TWIRLING, TWIRLING INTO THE FUTURE!

richard mcenroe said...

Let's see if Obama botches his appearance for Mary Burke...

JamesB.BKK said...

Those bad corporate managers aren't protecting the value of their shareholders' property by keeping it away from the gaping maw of the US government, they're depriving the US government of its "revenue." After all, "government" is just the word for the stuff we all do together.

Paul said...

Maybe what she said was a liberal 'dog whistle' of sorts.

She tells them the truth and when the outcry comes she backtrack all the while winking at her liberal Democrat base.

Yea... she knew just what she was saying, and so did her listeners.

Eric said...

It's almost like someone who's never had a real job doesn't know how jobs get created.

FedkaTheConvict said...

Joe Schmoe said:
"Romney should have offered hope to those people; hope in the form of better jobs and lower taxes."


The 47 percent already do not pay any federal income taxes so I fail to see how "lower taxes" would benefit them.

Doubting Richard said...

"... like a doting, faithful old husband."

Not sure Clinton knows what a faithful husband is like.

Terry said...

Rob wrote:
"From the bottom up and middle out? This is the considered restatement? WTF does that mean?"
Obama said it as well. It is a meaningless statement, like saying "education should prepare children for the future".
There is not a politician in the free world who wouldn't give everything he or she has to know the public policy recipe for lifting the poor out of poverty and for expanding the middle class. You would be elected over and over again. You would gladly f*ck the rich to do it, whether you are a D or R.
Democrat economics has succeeded in expanding the ranks of the poor, decreasing the size of the middle class, and making the rich richer.
Way to go, team Obama!

james conrad said...

Let's face it, Hillary is just not a skillful politician and her clumsy channeling of the liz warren argument was pitiful.

Conserve Liberty said...

Rationalize the corporate tax rate and watch the jobs and money - $1.7 Trillion - come back onshore.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
I see a bad pattern developing here. Althouse will write some slightly negative things about Clinton. You guys will respond with some over the top bitchin' and moanin' and slowly a beautiful friendship will be torn apart. Submit now to Hillary. Submit and make peace with your fate. You know it's gonna happen.


Somebody has drunk long and deep.
She hasn't got a chance in hell. Women don't like her.

Browndog said...

"Bottom up, middle out" has been around for many decades. An economic model developed by Karl Marx, the phrase has been uttered by many leftist politicians/activists since the '60's.

What was once underground is now being peddled as mainstream.

Bobber Fleck said...

Is there anything government can't do?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Hillary Clinton's economics are a combination of mostly fascist and socialism.


From "A Glossary of Political Economy Terms" copyright © 1994-2005 Paul M. Johnson. Department of Political Science, 7080 Haley Center, Auburn University,

"Strict regulation and control of the economy by the regime through some form of corporatist economic planning in which the legal forms of private ownership of industry are nominally preserved but in which both workers and capitalists are obliged to submit their plans and objectives to the most detailed state regulation and extensive wage and price controls, which are designed to insure the priority of the political leadership's objectives over the private economic interests of the citizenry. Therefore under fascism most of the more important markets are allowed to operate only in a non-competitive, cartelized, and governmentally "rigged" fashion."


Diogenes of Sinope said...

Hillary is against capitalism and free market economics just like most Democrats and large portion of Republicans.

Bob Boyd said...

Hillary, the Faux-Fauxcahantas

campy said...

"She hasn't got a chance in hell. Women don't like her."

Women don't matter. No voting blocs matter. Whoever the dems nominate will become prez.

Inkling said...

Keep in mind that Hillary is speaking from her perspective. She probably never sees anyone from business who is actively taking risks and creating jobs. What she sees as a liberal Democrat are the crony capitalists with their hands out of subsidies or favors. The government-funded jobs they create are an illusion.

Bandit said...

so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades."

Because it's all been BS up to now?? No??

Jane the Actuary said...

Her "correction" doesn't make any sense.

I'm going with (1) "corporations don't create jobs, only small mom and pop shops do," or (2) "Chinese-style central planning creates jobs."

Hagar said...

— for a couple of decades —

Shouldn't that be 4+ decades?

Bruce Hayden said...

Should be interesting. Pundits on FNC yesterday were predicting that come next election, if she gets the nomination, that the Republicans will be looping this message of hers as a campaign ad pretty hard. I think I would put in in a rotation with a picture of the burned (or even better burning) consulate in Benghazi, with her asking what difference does it make. I might also throw in pictures of their houses, and her talking about how broke they were.

The problem with the Dems running Hillary! Next time is that she isn't a cipher, like Obama was. I don't know which one is further to the left, more dedicated to the fascist brand of socialism that seems to so enamored so many of those on the left best positioned to benefit from its inherent crony capitalism. She has a track record of minimal competence and maximal graft and corruption, stretching back to being booted from the Watergate investigation for ethical breaches. This is a grasping, greedy, very petty woman, whose major triumph in life was marrying well, despite her husband being well below her socially at the time she married him. If she runs, it won't be pretty.

tim in vermont said...

Isn't the definition of a gaffe saying what you really think?

tim in vermont said...

I wonder why it was such a big applause line then...

Tank said...

A great debate question:

Explain how jobs are created.

I recall it being used before with amusing results.

It's only a good question if it's a surprise. Then it's likely to give some insight into what the candidate knows about economics.

tim in vermont said...

One of the great language successes of the left is to move any discussion of fascism beyond the pale, and to take the other term for this kind of crony capitalism, "corporatism" and redefine it to mean political involvement by corporations.

There is no more word in Newspeak to rationally discuss Hillary's economic ideas from a critical point of view.

Fernandinande said...

Hillary Clinton explains "I got caught telling a very stupid lie and now I'm still lying."

Bruce Hayden said...

I remember a big reason Althouse voted for Obama was because "McCain doesn't understand economics." Hillary's economic illiteracy could fill volumes.

The absurd thing there has always been that Obama knew far less about economics than McCain does, and much of what he knew was wrong. As we have seen with his bungling of the economy so badly that this has been the slowest recovery, by far, since the Great Depression, whose depth and length was also greatly caused by silly failed progressive comic theories. At least FDR could be excused for not knowing better, and maybe fighting an existential communist threat. Obama and the Dems have no such excuse. We have a pretty good idea what works, and instead, they picked personal graft, greed, and desire for more money and power over recovering from the recession caused by the bursting of the housing bubble they created in another of their brain dead economic plans. It didn't help that they picked career corrupt politicians Pelosi and Reid to run things in Congress. The former repeatedly showing that she knew even less about economics than Obama does, which is pretty hard to accomplish.

You could see this train wreck as it started to leave the station six years ago. You had the Dems talking about all the money they were going to pump into the economy, and then, almost by magic, large pieces of it were immediately sliced off for family, friends, and political backers. Pelosi telling us that what was important was how much money was spent, and that it really didn't matter if it went to cronies. And so it did, and it did matter. And you knew that they were clueless when the President kept talking about shovel ready infrastructure projects, then failed to waive Davis Bacon or the federal procurement requirements that add years to any project.

Bob R said...

This really highlights how bad a politician she is. This argument is basic blue cocoon red meat. (Blue meat?) Warren articulated it. Obama tried it and got it much worse. HRC does it and gets it even worse.

Hilarious that she can be held up as a feminist icon. Bill has always been her ticket to power. Almost as if the big thing they teach them at Wellesley is to marry well.

Joe Schmoe said...

Holy smokes. Reliably-lefty outlet Yahoo News is already calling this a gaffe by Hillary.

I thought only Republicans gaffed. Are we seeing the lefty media revealing their preference for anyone but Hill?

Scott M said...

How does "businesses don't create jobs" become shorthand for "businesses create jobs"?

tim in vermont said...

I think the Democrats have taken "hagiography" to a new level with Hillary.

Terry said...

Barney Frank once said “Government is simply a word for the things we decide to do together.”
This is fascism defined. The state as the actor of national will.
The list of "things we decide to do together" used to be pretty short. Fight wars, send astronauts to the Moon, etc.
These days it includes quitting smoking and banning plastic grocery bags.

Bob Ellison said...

Government is simply a word for what the mob wants.

RecChief said...

Like it's our fault we don't know what she meant.

Actually, the first reading is exactly what she meant.

RecChief said...

Which means she has no record. We've seen Hillary in action. Surely Warren has to be more competent.

No record? Where do you think "you didn't build that!" originated? Don't you think we've had enough of law professors with no record of executive experience whatsoever? And, no record doesn't mean more competent.

RecChief said...

Annie said...
We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton, 6/29/2004

We ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people. - Hillary Clinton, 6/4/2007


Thanks. worth remembering. And worth repeating that she said that

Skipper said...

"You didn't build that."

Browndog said...

Has it dawned on anyone that many democrats, especially those in power, believe the government creates jobs is because the government did indeed create jobs-

THEIRS

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Any public figure who says 'let me be absolutely clear about X' has just admitted the intent to obfuscate, mislead, dodge, evade and conceal much of the universe of facts related to X.

That phrase is as good as saying CHANGE CHANNELS NOW!

bgates said...

There is not a politician in the free world who wouldn't give everything he or she has to know the public policy recipe for lifting the poor out of poverty and for expanding the middle class.

That amounts to saying "every politician wants to serve the public good and/or cannot conceive of a way to profit personally while hurting lots of people", which is obviously not true.

RecChief said...

Bruce Hayden said...
I remember a big reason Althouse voted for Obama was because "McCain doesn't understand economics." Hillary's economic illiteracy could fill volumes.


The absurd thing there has always been that Obama knew far less about economics than McCain does, and much of what he knew was wrong

I'm glad you pointed this out. I was thinking the same thing last night. HRC doesn't know anything about the economy either, but rest assured, whoever the GOP runs against Hillary won't measure up to Althouse's standards for feminism, or be a full throated champion of gay marriage, or some other social justice bullshit.

RecChief said...

tim in vermont said...
I think the Democrats have taken "hagiography" to a new level with Hillary.


At least they haven't taken to staging photographic halos. Yet.

Terry said...

bgates, who said every politician "cannot conceive of a way to profit personally while hurting lots of people"?
Can you think of any politician who would not like to take the credit for reducing poverty and enlarging the middle class?

mikee said...

Hillary!

Remember when the name, followed by an exclamation point, was supposed to be an argument to vote for her?

Now we have actual policy from Hillary to think about: What does it matter that her inaction led to the deaths of US citizens overseas? At home, companies maximizing shareholder profit need to be punished by government.

Anyone voting for Hillary needs to admit they are voting to kill their fellow citizens and destroy business through government diktat. Thinking anything else is a lie.

Paul said...

All right... ALL RIGHT....

Folks, what, at this point, does it matter?

Bygones!

As for the possibility of her being elected, well they elected Obama TWICE, so don't take her candidacy lightly.

As Pappy Maverick said, "you can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, and them good odds!"

Larry J said...

When I hear people like Warren and Hillary say such stupid things, it only reaffirms that Orwell was right - there are some things so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them. Only, Warren, Hillary, and most of the Ivy League bunch aren't nearly as intelligent as they believe.

Bob Ellison said...

Hillary says "I want to take those profits."

BDNYC said...

I just listened to Hillary's comments from yesterday. I'd forgotten what a grating monotone voice she has. Reminds me of a strict (and hated) elementary school teacher.

jr565 said...

One of the dumbest statements yet uttered by a politician in modern times.

jr565 said...

But she's playing to her base... Because... That's what her base beleives. She got the audience to applause for that point, remember.

Unknown said...

On its face, the comment is beyond belief ... inexplicable, really. What struck me about watching the video of HRC's delivery however, is how obvious it was that the "mental gears" were crashing as she vamped a few seconds trying to figure out what it was that she wanted to say. And, what came out was just plain stupid. I think there are some problems there, and they may become more evident if she actually campaigns and, inevitably, is forced to be spontaneous.

Matthew Sablan said...

Let me be clear.

jr565 said...

The small town cling to their guns and religion was not a gaffe. It's what Barack Obama and liberal really think of (white) people living in small towns.

Matthew Sablan said...

"How does American labor compete with $10 per day labor in China?"

-- Tariffs?

Matthew said...

On the subject of outsourcing and "living wages":

The Left hasn't figured out yet that labor is no longer a valuable commodity in an age of automation, and in a global economy in which billions of just-as-skilled-and-cheaper laborers are available.

The more they harp on this "living wage" and "businesses don't create jobs" BS, instead of focusing on what truly needs to be done -- build a better educational system, freed from political correctness and labor unions -- that teaches truly useful skills (like STEM subjects; the economy of the future is one of the scientific intellect, not the liberal arts), they're going to continue to fail on economics and have nothing left to fall back on but the continued Welfare State.

(Then again, beggars are easier to buy off in elections)

A Welfare state that can no longer be subsidized by a nation $20 trillion debt (that is, when we've finally run out of other people's money), I might add.

Achilles said...

Shorter Hillar:

I was just telling those rubes in that audience what they wanted to hear. What do you want to hear? I can tell you anything except what I have accomplished.

Hagar said...

I don't think so.
I think what Hillary! says is always premeditated and structured for effect in the audience before her, and she has no intention of ever telling you what she really thinks about anything whatever.
This time it just all became momentarily muddled in her mind, and she wound up doing a Joe Biden.
She is getting old, or that fall really did cause her some problems.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I think what Hillary! says is always premeditated and structured for effect in the audience before her, and she has no intention of ever telling you what she really thinks about anything whatever."

-- This is true about a lot of politicians though, which is why more and more they try to restrict press access from neutral or non-friendly press.

Hagar said...

Tell the truth!
It will confound your enemies and astound your friends.
-- Mark Twain

Or, as my old boss used to say - it makes life ever so much simpler, and you can work faster and get more done, if you don't have to try to remember just what you told whom last, and getting work done is what I am paying you for!

Rusty said...

Hagar said...
Tell the truth!
It will confound your enemies and astound your friends.
-- Mark Twain


It's what I've always have done. Far better to tell the truth and not be believed than to lie.
I sleep at night.

Chuck said...

It appears that as yet, no one caught the muffed phraseology from Mrs. Clinton.

She didn't "short hand" that comment about jobs. She "short armed" it.

"Short handed" in sports means to play with a disadvantage, as in hockey when your team is penalized and the opposing team thereby has an extra (and potentially unguarded) skater. Or when a football team accidentally sends only 10 men onto the field for a play.

"Short arming" is a mostly-baseball term generally describing a situation in which an infielder (usually) makes an unforced bad throw by "short arming" it. Although hard to describe, a short-armed throw would be on in which the player hesitated or quit on a throw such that it fell well short of, or away from, the intended recipient.

Larry J said...

jr565 said...
One of the dumbest statements yet uttered by a politician in modern times.


I don't even recall Joe Biden saying something as dumb as that, and he's the poster child of stupid.

Lawyer Mom said...

Don't let anyone tell you that was a "walk back." That was a moon walk.

Expect more surreal "don't lets" like:

*Don't let anyone tell you that Obamacare took away your favorite doctor.
* Don't let anyone tell you that your insurance premiums increased.
* Don't let anyone tell you that charter schools work.
* Don't let anyone tell you that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
* Don't let anyone tell you the IRS persecutes and prosecutes conservative taxpayers.
* Don't let anyone tell you that landscaping business you built came from your own handwork.

Sure, these are all demonstrably false. But honey-badger Hillary don't care.