<p>I-dad: See TheDad’s post #48. Britney and Lindsey are what make news in SoCal, and, of course, the local football guy, OJ. Coverage of east coast and midwest primaries loses every time.</p>
<p>The link you provided is a full 3:24 seconds of an clear speech on her position on immigration, but it was not the question that was asked. I could not find in the 3:24 clip where HC address that question that was put to her, i.e., her governor’s policy of licenses for undocumented immigrants NOW. She is a NY state resident & senator, and she either has an opinion (or doesn’t) , but whatever it is, we just don’t know.</p>
<p>Washington Week in Review panned Hilary’s performance as well.</p>
<p>She said quite clearly that efforts by Governors won’t work without a comprehensive federal approach to illegal immigration, if for no other reason than undocumented immigrants won’t come out of the shadows to avail themselves of such programs, knowing that they could be deported as a result and employers who benefit from hiring undocumented workers won’t stop in the absence of any threat of sanction.</p>
<p>Post 60 .Funding information is available if you choose to look for it. Which I do and have done. Feel free.</p>
<p>Does this mean that you have and had no specific information that that would have shown the fact that the Republican Party was funding the private group know as, National Right to Life Committee, was information available to the public? </p>
<p>Do you know, and can you tell me, where information about the funding of private groups like the National Right to Life Committee is available to the public?</p>
<p>Yeah, I get the speech, which I think was delivered extremely well, but, again, that was NOT what was asked. Please help me understand her position:</p>
<p>Based on your viewing the debates, and following politics much more than me, do you know if Hillary supports NY (and other states) providing licenses to undocumented workers TODAY, does she not support such a policy, or does she have no opinion on her home state governor’s policy? </p>
<p>While she maybe correct, whether it will work or not was NOT the question posed by the panelist. </p>
<p>btw: The California Legislature passed, a couple of times, a law enabling undocumented aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, and I don’t recall any of the discussion hinging on whether it would “work” absent federal immigration reform.</p>
<p>"Does this mean that you have and had no specific information that that would have shown the fact that the Republican Party was funding the private group know as, National Right to Life Committee, was “information available to the public?” </p>
<p>Do you know, and can you tell me, where information about the funding of private groups like the National Right to Life Committee is available to the public?"</p>
<p>It means that this information is public information. You can do some research by way of the IRS, Secretaries of State for the states in which it is active. You are being disingenuous here and we both know it. Start with a Google and see where you get. There’s lots and lots of information out there.</p>
<p>Why is it disingenuous of me to ask you to back up a definitive statement you have made?</p>
<p>You said; .that fact of that funding is information available to the public who can then decide how best to act upon that information. </p>
<p>Your said, it was a fact . I would like for you to back up your statement. How do you know it is a fact? </p>
<p>Is it disingenuous for a person to say something is a fact, if in fact they have know way of knowing whether it is a fact or not. I dont want to or wish to start an argument and have you start calling me names. I just want to know how you know the contributors list of the Nation Right To Life Committee is information available to the public, as you claimed.</p>
<p>Careful Tommy you’re twisting there. You absolutely have a way of knowing: do an internet search. You know as well as I do that non-profits are required to provide certain information publicly. I did a google search before the first post and found tons of information. You could do the same as you well know. That is what’s disingenuous, but you knew that, too.</p>
<p>“I just want to know how you know the contributors list of the Nation Right To Life Committee is “information available to the public,” as you claimed.”</p>
<p>That’s not what I posted and you know that, too, since you quoted me directly earlier in the post. Nice obfuscation, though. Way to ignore the original point.</p>
<p>"Mrs. Clinton’s aides said her statement Wednesday expressing general support for Mr. Spitzer’s plan was intended to signal that she broadly supported his goal of granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. But they said she had not studied — and was not endorsing — any specific plan. [Then, why didn’t she just come out and say that?]</p>
<p>Mr. Spitzer initially proposed a blanket program of giving full-fledged driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. In the face of sharp opposition from state lawmakers, he backed off and presented the tiered system.</p>
<p>In issuing the statement, Mrs. Clinton was trying to deal with the concern that she was not taking clear positions on issues. Still, the wording of the statement was murkier than what many of her opponents have said in either supporting or opposing Mr. Spitzer’s initiatives."</p>
<p>HC even admits that her answer was unclear. In an interview with Manchester UnionLeader:</p>
<p>"Clinton admitted she did not give her best performance at the Tuesday MSNBC debate.</p>
<p>“I don’t think was as artful in answering one of the questions,” she said. “I got a lot of questions that night, a lot more than anybody else. I think on the vast majority of them I did well and people thought I did well, but I’d be the first to tell you that I wasn’t as effective in answering the driver’s license question as I should have been.”</p>
<p>Clinton on Tuesday gave what appeared to be conflicting answers to moderator Tim Russert’s line of questioning on whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.</p>
<p>She first said the plan “makes sense.” She then said a few minutes later, “I did not say that it should be done.” That prompted accusations that Clinton had flip-flopped from Obama, Edwards and Dodd.</p>
<p>from a a communications guy who teaches at Cal:</p>
<p>According to Dan Schnur, however, such tactics are typical for campaigns – and not just Clinton’s. “I don’t think in either party I’ve ever seen a campaign that holds question and answer events that doesn’t arrange for some questions,” says Schnur. “That’s not to say every question is prepared. That’s not to say the candidate knows every question coming. But it’s pretty standard practice.”…</p>
<p>“Every candidate faces one double standard or another, especially if it reinforces the preexisting impressions about that candidate,” says Schnur. “There is already a suspicion among the first concentric circles of politics that Hillary Clinton is over-programmed, so this becomes a bigger story for her than it would for (Barack) Obama or (John) Edwards.”.</p>
<p>Tommybill, I’ve found it to be pretty difficult to find where some types of money come from which support various organizations. The donee lists for some foundations are available - if you want to follow the spoor of the right wing propaganda machine you can do a pretty good job just by reading the donee list of the Bradley foundation for the past 20 years, for example - but backtracking from an organization to the sources of its funds is not always so easy. </p>
<p>For example, the trail of evidence that a lot of the “tort reform” organizations were set up by the tobacco companies was traceable back in the day before internet searches, but nowadays they’ve gotten a lot better at hiding their tracks. I’m not sure how you would find the info referred to by Zoosermom.</p>
<p>"I did a search today and found a lot of information available on the Secretary of State websites. Is it all inclusive? No. Are things hidden? Most likely. But there is a lot of information available to anyone who wants to look for it. The specific piece of information to which I referred was available very easily, and Tommybill still hasn’t addressed the fact that no one could have known that the Clinton question was a plant if the young woman hadn’t said so. I STILL don’t think it’s a big deal, but I also don’t think the knowledge of the plant is some horrible attack on Clinton. Sorry, but there are much bigger deals than this and it’s funny as all heck that people can hide and howl to this level over something so insignificant.</p>
<p>I agree, it’s not a very big deal. It’s a big deal when candidates refuse to have contact with non-vetted voters at all, but suggesting questions to audience members who are free to say no or rephrase the question … who cares? I went to a sign-painting event prior to a rally, and the campaign staff let us know what slogans they would prefer we use. If we didn’t like the slogans, we could paint something else. Nobody called the associated press to complain, and I don’t see the difference.</p>
<p>Hanna, I don’t see the difference either. I don’t think there was anything untoward except the reaction. I view those meetings as simply a venue for a candidate to say whatever he or she wants to on a particular day.</p>
<p>From Post 71…The specific piece of information to which I referred was available very easily </p>
<p>Please tell me where me where the information you refer to is and how I can access this information. </p>
<p> Tommybill still hasn’t addressed the fact that no one could have known that the Clinton question was a plant if the young woman hadn’t said so </p>
<p>My last post is confusing…I was trying to say the comment that no one could have known that the Clinton question was a plant if the young woman hadn’t said so is correct. </p>
<p>It is also correct to say I had not addressed this fact. In any event, I have now addressed the issue, and I am in agreement with the statment. </p>
<p>If there is anything I need to address please let me know.</p>
<p>Kluge from post 70 … I’m not sure how you would find the info referred to by Zoosermom </p>
<p>Kluge this is not a problem, Zoosermom has said in post 71 The specific piece of information to which I referred was available very easily and I have ask her to let me know how she found the specific piece of information to which she referred and where I can find it. I am sure she will be able and willing to share with me/us how I can also find this specific piece of information. </p>
<p>Once Zooermom shares where the information is and how to find it the issue will be put to rest.</p>
<p>No, Kluge, I’m not going to do that. I told you both where I looked and that it took me some time. I don’t appreciate the attack mentality of Tommybill and am not going to play along. I gave my answer. If he didn’t like it, that’s fine, but I’m not going to play this game.</p>