Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Would you want Hillary Clinton as your home-mortgage broker? (This is a serious question, although it has nothing to do with actual mortgages. I don’t think.)

As for Clinton herself, her bandwagon-jumping nature is a big reason why so many people dislike her.  But in this instance there was the additional element of dishonesty: she knew that Sanders rather than the editorial board members had it right about what Dodd-Frank provides. She had said so publicly, recently, in a statement in which she also said she had said that before.

I added an addendum to my Thursday post, on a different matter—but it’s really part and parcel of the same one: The New York Times fact check blog had fact checked a recent statement of Clinton’s in which she said she “couldn’t believe” it when she learned that Sanders was opposing the recent Paris climate-change agreement.  Her intended implication of course was that Sanders thinks the agreement goes too far.   Both the statement itself and the intended implication were false.  Sanders supports the agreement as a first step and says much more is needed.

What’s the real story?  What’s she leaving out?  What intended inference is not true?  What connection is she implying that is false?  What word is she parsing or cutely redefining?  Both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are habitual, maybe pathological, liars, so hopefully it won’t matter that, in Clinton, the Democrats will be nominating someone who campaigns like a used-car-salesman cliché.

Why did Paul Krugman and the Washington Post editorial board—both of whom know better—misrepresent that it was Sanders rather than the New York Daily News editorial board that was wrong about what Dodd-Frank provides, and about whether it would be Treasury or instead the financial institutions themselves that would determine the method of paring down?, Me, Apr. 10

At the end of that post I said it would be my last on the subject of that New York Daily News executive board interview of Sanders and the punditry’s reaction to it.  And it will be.  That first paragraph above is about that, but this post is not.  It is instead about the matter discussed in the second paragraph above, and about a new comment by Clinton, this one as part of a gun violence panel in New York City on Monday.

They both are illustrative of a weird, routine campaign technique of Clinton’s, one that I’ve noted in several posts since last summer, that I’m pretty sure are playing a fairly large role in Clinton’s inability to shake the widespread impression that she’s not honest, not trustworthy.  And her failure to overcome a distaste for her among large swaths of progressives.  Her sleight-of-hand misrepresentations about a statement or past or present policy position of Sanders’s, or a fact supposedly related to one, via two sentences, one immediately following the other or separated by another sentence or two, intended to impart a misstatement of fact.  She has done this now repeatedly in the last six months or so.

In the one I referenced above about the Paris Climate accord, the NYT Fact Checks of the 2016 Election blog’s Thomas Kaplan wrote:

Discussing climate change on Monday, Mrs. Clinton cited her “very vigorous record” on the subject. Then she proceeded to express bafflement about a stance she said her opponent had taken.

“I couldn’t believe it when Senator Sanders opposed the Paris agreement — the best chance we have to actually reverse climate change and deal with the consequences,” Mrs. Clinton said in an interview on “Capital Tonight,” an upstate New York cable news show.

The Paris agreement, reached in December, commits nearly every nation to take action to combat climate change. Given that Mr. Sanders has made climate change a major issue in his campaign, his supposed opposition would indeed seem odd.

But Mrs. Clinton’s characterization was misleading.

It is true that Mr. Sanders did not warmly embrace the Paris agreement. But his lack of enthusiasm was for the opposite reason that Mrs. Clinton suggested.

“While this is a step forward, it goes nowhere near far enough,” Mr. Sanders said in a statement in December. “The planet is in crisis. We need bold action in the very near future and this does not provide that.”

Clinton’s statement that Sanders opposed the agreement is false.  And since her comments clearly were intended to indicate that she is more supportive than Sanders of attempts to address climate change through international agreements (much more, actually), and therefore more supportive of attacking climate change, period, the statement indicated clearly, yet did not expressly say, that Sanders opposes the Paris accord because it is too strong.  Sanders, as Kaplan states, both supports the agreement and thinks it doesn’t go far enough, and (presumably) wants further accords.

Taking Clinton at her word in light of Sanders’s actual statement about the accord—as I hope Sanders does at tomorrow’s debate or the next time he discusses the issue of climate change—what Clinton said is that she can’t believe it that Sanders thinks the Paris accord isn’t the end-all-and-be-all of international climate change, and that he hopes there are additional international accords that will strengthen and broaden the Paris one.   She couldn’t believe it—her own words—presumably because she herself thinks the Paris accord is sufficient and cannot be improved upon because no improvement is necessary.  That’s the only other possible meaning of her statement.  Right?

Sanders should pick up that ball and run with it.

The new edition to this log of misrepresentations-by-cutely-placed-irrelevant-fact-plus-skillful-omission-of-a-relevant-one—specifically, her comments at the gun violence panel on Monday—did not include an actual false fact.  Instead it featured an irrelevant fact highlighted in a several-sentence statement strongly suggesting that the fact meant something meaningful—a Clinton specialty, perfected to a science based on the recognition that people reflexively presume that the central stated fact is stated and highlighted because it is relevant.  Which is proving to be a reflex that should be resisted when listening to Hillary Clinton.

The statement of fact by Hillary Clinton was fact-checked by Washington Post Fact Checker blogger Michelle Ye Hee Lee fact-checked.  This what Lee fact-checked:

“[Sanders] frequently says, ‘We’re a small, rural state, we have no gun laws.’ Here’s what I want you to know. Most of the guns that are used in crimes and violence and killings in New York come from out of state. And the state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont. So this is not, ‘Oh I live in a rural state we don’t have any of these problems.’ This is, you know what, it’s easy to cross borders. Criminals, domestic abusers, traffickers, people who are dangerously ill, they cross borders too. And sometimes they do it to get the guns they use.”

— Hillary Clinton, panel on gun violence, April 11, 2016

Lee’s post is lengthy, but here are the last several paragraphs:

We don’t dispute that there are guns tied to crime in New York that originated from Vermont. Every state had at least some dozen traced guns originating from it in 2014. But it’s important to keep these numbers in context.

In 2014, guns from 10 states comprised 56 percent of all traced guns, ATF data show. The top 10 source states, in order from highest to lowest, were: California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arizona and Indiana.

Vermont ranked 49th behind Hawaii in raw figures among all source states in 2014, ATF data show. As a percentage of population, Vermont ranked 40th among all source states, at 31 guns per 100,000 people.

The Pinocchio Test

Vermont does provide the highest per capita number of guns tied to crimes in New York. This point resonated with audience members, who gasped when she told them this factoid. But as much as the Clinton campaign may want to blame Sanders or his home state for the guns in New York, this is a misleading data point.

The per capita calculation is skewed by Vermont’s small population (55 guns out of 626,562 people, or 8.78 guns per 100,000 people). When it comes to gun trafficking between states, the raw numbers indicate the actual volume of guns flowing out of a state, and the prevalence of dealers who may be selling guns that are tied to crime. If you take out the 55 Vermont-originated guns from all crime guns that came from outside of New York, the number of crime guns in 2014 would decrease to 2,556 from 2,611. That’s how much impact the flow of crime guns from Vermont has on the volume of crime guns in New York.

The number of crime guns in New York from Vermont is so small that it could even be attributed to one or two bad actors. Using the per capita measure of trafficked guns originating from Vermont is as pointless as counting guns trafficked per 100,000 head of cattle.

We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios. Clinton has carefully crafted her talking point to find the particular government data that support her point, which gives a wildly different view than how trafficking flows are tracked. We do not find the per capita measure as a fair assessment of gun flows from Vermont into New York. The difference between this point using per capita calculation and the raw number (1 percent of crime guns with source states identified in 2014 came from Vermont) is so stark that it creates a significantly misleading impression to the public. Those factors tip to Three Pinocchios.

Three Pinocchios

Elsewhere in that article or in another one I read, it is noted that the comment drew gasps from the audience, indicating Clinton’s success at suggesting that the statistic she was citing matters.  Meaning almost certainly that most audience members thought, as she surely intended, that as a percentage of population, Vermont ranked 1st among all source states as the source of all traced guns involved in crimes in New York state. But it was not first; it was 40th, according to Lee.

It’s asinine.  And in any event it sure would be interesting to ask some members of that audience whether they understood what statistic Clinton actually was talking about: 55 guns originating in Vermont and used in crimes in New York State in 2014, without which there would have been 2,556 rather than 2,611 guns originating from out-of-state that were used in crimes in New York state that year.

Quoting myself in the Comments thread to my Apr. 7 post about Clinton’s parroting of the punditry’s take on the part of that editorial board’s interview of Sanders concerning the breadth of Dodd-Frank vis-à-vis ‘systemically important’ financial institutions notwithstanding her statements directly to the contrary during the February debate and earlier in the campaign, I wrote in my Aug. 10 post, the one from which I excerpted the opening paragraphs of this post:

Clinton did her usual thing: Someone fed her a line and she parroted it. I hope that at the debate on Thursday Sanders hangs this one around her neck. and tightens the noose until she gets that she needs to stop that tactic–even if she needs methadone to help her break the habit.

That applies as well to her irrelevant-fact-plus-skillful-omission-of-a-relevant-one method of misrepresentation of fact, but I doubt that methadone or anything else will help her quit, because she apparently thinks it’s effective.  Which it is; these statements gain media attention, are fact checked, and shown to be deliberately implicit misrepresentations, cutting yet deeper into her credibility for voters.

No one wants to feel like they’re dealing with a slippery car salesperson or a pre-Crash mortgage broker.  No one wants to always have to presume that if she’s talking about her opponent she’s as likely to be misleading in her statements as not.

Since credibility is not the forte of Trump, Cruz, Paul Ryan or anyone else the Republicans plausibly will nominate, either, this won’t be the problem that it would otherwise be.  But really, what’s the purpose?  Maybe it really is like heroin for her.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (12) | |

Clinton admits she failed to do her homework, and therefore misunderstood, when she stated at the February debate that Dodd-Frank already authorizes the Treasury Dept. to force too-big-to-fail banks to pare down and that therefore no further legislation authorizing it is necessary. That’s quite an admission by her, and the New York Daily News editorial board (and the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza) should take note.

A notion is rapidly crystallizing among the national media that Bernie Sanders majorly bungled an interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News.His rival, Hillary Clinton, has even sent a transcript of the interview to supporters as part of a fundraising push. A close look at that transcript, though, suggests the media may be getting worked up over nothing.

In fact, in several instances, it’s the Daily News editors who are bungling the facts in an interview designed to show that Sanders doesn’t understand the fine points of policy. In questions about breaking up big banks, the powers of the Treasury Department and drone strikes, the editors were simply wrong on details.

Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

This is true, as economist Dean BakerPeter Eavis at The New York Times, and HuffPost’s Zach Carter in a Twitter rant have all pointed out. It’s also the position of Clinton herself. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton said at a February debate. No media outcry followed her assertion, because it was true.

As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Follow in the transcript how Sanders kept referring to the authority of the administration and the Treasury Department through Dodd-Frank, known as Wall Street reform, while the Daily News editors shifted to the Fed.

Did Bernie Sanders Botch An Interview With The Daily News? It’s Not That Simple., Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief at The Huffington Post, yesterday

The subtitle of Grim’s article isThe interview exposes as much about the media as it does about Bernie Sanders.”  And indeed it does.  It exposes this particular editorials board as profoundly ignorant about virtually every subject the interview addressed—not just the specifics of Dodd-Frank but (astonishingly) also about this country’s decades-long position on Israel’s policy regarding new settlements in occupied Palestinian territories and also on the general nature and legal effect of treaties and United Nations resolutions pertaining to them, and a few other things.

It also exposes the board members as high-school-amateurish, not just as journalists but as, well, people.  Not just in the adolescent questions they asked but also in their mysterious inability to follow their own questions, which on the banking issue they were unable to recall from one question to the next whether they were asking about current law (Dodd-Frank) or instead about possible new legislation.  Not to mention, although Grim did, their failure to distinguish between the role of the Fed and the role of the Treasury Dept. on this issue under Dodd-Frank.

And it exposes a slew of other mainstream-media political analysts as just ridiculous.  But particularly, it exposes the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, the chemist who started the crystallization shortly after the Daily News released a transcript of the interview, for what he is: a robot, or maybe a computer, whose algorithms are programmed to forecast specific public reactions to certain words, phrases or clauses uttered by politicians in interviews, debates or off-hand responses to a reporter or to a voter at, say, a town hall-type campaign appearance. “I don’t know the answer to that,” or “I haven’t thought much about it,” or “the banks should be allowed to determine what means they will use to pare down in accord with banking-regulation edict” or “I can’t provide the specific citation to the fraud statute in the federal Criminal Code” are definite career destroyers.*  Or at least presidential candidacy destroyers.

And since Cillizza is highly regarded among mainstream political analysts who themselves lack those algorithms and must get by with baas, Clinton had a ball she thought she could pick up and run with.  So, interviewed yesterday morning on “Morning Joe” yesterday, and asked about Sanders’ responses to the Daily News editorial board members’ too-big-to-fail questions, she had a script prepared not by her consultants but by Cillizza, et al., that included this:

I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.

She went on to question whether Sanders was qualified to be president.

So the Daily News interview debacle serves handily also to highlight what’s wrong with Clinton.  Characteristically, she echoed a statement by members of that editorial board that she knew was false and also alluded to Sanders’ befuddlement (incredulousness, really) at other misstatements of fact by the editorial board members—it hasn’t been U.S. policy, for decades, to insist that as part of a two-state solution brokered by the White House or State Dept., Israel must withdraw its West Bank settlements on certain specific lands?—as disqualifying Sanders as a presidential candidate.

Grim’s piece links to the RealClear Politics headline from February 4, posted shortly after the February debate, headlined “Clinton Agrees With Sanders: ‘We Now Have Power Under Dodd-­Frank To Break Up Big Banks’”.  The article links to videotape.  Clinton said, “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk. ”

So Clinton failed to do her homework, either before that debate in February or before that “Morning Joe” interview yesterday.  And that does raise a lot of questions.  A lot of questions.  Which presumably the New York Daily News editorial board will seek answers to when they interview her.

The aforementioned post by Peter Eavis, in the New York Times blog The Upshot on Tuesday, is titled “Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks.”  Time to find out whether Hillary Clinton does.

___

*These aren’t actually direct quotes. They’re my paraphrases.

____

ADDENDUM: This is an entry posted yesterday at the New York Times Fact Checks of the 2016 Election blog:

Discussing climate change on Monday, Mrs. Clinton cited her “very vigorous record” on the subject. Then she proceeded to express bafflement about a stance she said her opponent had taken.

“I couldn’t believe it when Senator Sanders opposed the Paris agreement — the best chance we have to actually reverse climate change and deal with the consequences,” Mrs. Clinton said in an interview on “Capital Tonight,” an upstate New York cable news show.

The Paris agreement, reached in December, commits nearly every nation to take action to combat climate change. Given that Mr. Sanders has made climate change a major issue in his campaign, his supposed opposition would indeed seem odd.

But Mrs. Clinton’s characterization was misleading.

It is true that Mr. Sanders did not warmly embrace the Paris agreement. But his lack of enthusiasm was for the opposite reason that Mrs. Clinton suggested.

“While this is a step forward, it goes nowhere near far enough,” Mr. Sanders said in a statement in December. “The planet is in crisis. We need bold action in the very near future and this does not provide that.”

— Thomas Kaplan

So Clinton doesn’t believe her own hallucination.  She just wants Democratic primary voters to.

Then again, maybe she really can’t distinguish between a lament by someone that something doesn’t go far enough or isn’t strong enough and one that objects that the thing goes too far or is too strong.  This seems to be a recurring type of confusion for her.  So she may not be faking it after all.  Maybe she really can’t tell the difference.

Addendum added 4/7 at 8:35 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (14) | |