Dishonesty seems like a mandatory Clinton surrogate trait. That has to be true. There can be no other explanation for the propaganda that permeates from the Clinton campaign.
Here is the deifintion of dishonesty:
dishonesty
Main Entry: dis·hon·es·ty Pronunciation: -nə-stē\ Function: noun Date: 1599 1 : lack of honesty or integrity : disposition to defraud or deceive
More....
The recent claims by the Clinton campaign and their surrogates point this fact out, beyond all doubts.
First, the claim that Senator Obama made false claims about being a law professor at the University of Chicago. In a press release entitled "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements" .
One of the claims:
Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor" out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is ... you’ll get quite an emotional response.
That was quickly refuted by the University of Chicago itself:
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
It is unbelievable how dishonest the Clintons and their surrogates can be. Even factcheck.org laughs at them. I have seen this claim being spread all over the internet. The Clinton campaign are acting like this is some kind of gold, while intelligent people can barely withhold their laughter.
What the heck is wrong with Hillary and her surrogates?
And now, while browsing through MyDD, a diarist takes on another dishonest shot at Senator Obama, with a diary titled "Explain This - Sen. Obama!" .
In the diary we get these gems:
In a new ad running in Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama claims that he does not "take money from oil companies or lobbyists."... he doesn't take money from those sources because he doesn't want "any strings attached."
I hope you didn't take him at his word though. According to the Center for Responsive politics Sen. Obama has, as of February 29th, taken in over $213,ooo from oil and gas companies, including but not limited to Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron!
The important distinction here is Sen. Clinton has admitted that she accepts money from many groups, and asserts, quite legitimately, that accepting these funds does not mean that she would act in any way other than in the public interest.
Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had consistently and repeatedly stated that he does not accept PAC money or money from federally registered lobbyists, but as you can see, this is not true.
Really? The diarist even provides a link. Except the link doesn't say what she claims it does.
Here is the conclusion of the link the diarist gives:
Just last month, Obama took more than $11,000 from individuals at Exxon-Mobil, per the center. At least 12 of those contributions came from individuals who contributed $250 each, the lowest listed donation. In that same period, Clinton took more than $3,000 from individuals working at Exxon-Mobil.
However, many of those contributions appear to come from workers at the firm not just executives. For example, Patrice McGowan, an Exxon-Mobil shift supervisor, who lives in Joliet, Ill., has donated $982 to Obama as of January. She also has a blog profile on Obama’s campaign Web site.
"I am a single woman who has worked shift work all my life, sometimes never seeing another woman on the job for weeks," her profile reads, in part.
In a statement today, Obama spokesman Bill Burton, reiterated that Obama doesn't take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists, and "that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists."
So Clinton and the diarists want to make the claim 'Look, Obama is just as bad as we are!'. Only that's not even true. People have to list their employer when they make a political donation. Meaning, if you and some people from your work donated to Senator Obama, he must be taking money from your company, according to the Clinton campaign and her surrogates.
How silly, petty and dishonest is that? I was going to respond to that diary with a post, but Jerome/MyDD took away my posting abilities. I encourage others to let the diarist and others everywhere how ridiculous they look pushing a Clinton memo based on dishonesty and petty lies.