Was this a gaff, a misspeak, a technical malfunction? What difference does it make?


Speaking at a campaign rally, Tuesday, August 2, in Omaha, Nebraska, Hillary Clinton stated the following: “Trump wants to cut taxes for the super-rich,” Clinton told the jeering crowd. “Well we’re not going there, my friends. I’m telling you right now, we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!”

I was watching TV when I first saw this video and it sure sounded like she said she would raise taxes on the middle class. Bill Clinton did it, Obama did it, so why shouldn’t I think that Hillary, another Democrat, if elected president, would do it also?

My first thoughts were that she did, indeed, misspeak. Furthermore, I thought that either the campaign, or perhaps Hillary herself would explain things. Were her notes incorrect, was the teleprompter incorrect? But we heard nothing. I later watched the video several times to see if I could hear anything different, but it sounded the same to me, like she would raise taxes on the middle class.

Of course, Republican nominee, Donald Trump, picked up the ball and ran with it, and that’s shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Apparently the Clinton campaign was just as surprised about this as anyone, according to Politifact. Campaign spokesman, Josh Schwerin told Politifact that Clinton said the opposite. Schwerin also pointed to numerous reports who agreed and forwarded Pollitifact a transcript of the speech, which reads, “We aren’t going to raise taxes on the middle class.”

Because Politifact considered it a classic case of she-heard, he-heard, they asked experts to arbitrate. The experts agreed with the Clinton camp and offered some technical evidence to prove it. Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audo through a computer program which analyzes phonetics. According to Yu, the analysis of the sound waves, indicated was saying “aren’t.” Another professor, this time from MIT, ran the audio through the same program and came to the same results. OH PU-LEAZE! Is it necessary to do all of this?

A reasonable, prudent person would have “walked it back,” would have been upfront with it immediately, so that there was no confusion. Again, I have watched the video trying to hear the word, “aren’t,” as opposed to the word, “are.” I can only hear the word, “are.”

Donald Trump was given a “pants on fire” rating by Politifact. Because lots of folks heard “are,” and even if you’re one of those who claim that they heard “aren’t,” it was not clear, and if you are one of those who says, “Oh yes, it was clear as a bell that she said, “aren’t,” you’re lying. “Aren’t may have been said by her, but it wasn’t clearly heard by everyone. Donald Trump did not just decide to tell a “bold-faced” lie about Hillary, he made his statements as a result of the video.

Now, let’s imagine if Donald Trump had said something that was controversial and not abundantly clear in a speech. Of course, the mainstream media would be all over it, playing the video non-stop. Even if Mr. Trump admitted to misspeaking or to a technical glitch, liberal voters and the liberal media would never it go, saying it was a Freudian slip. It would then haunt him forever.

The MSM didn’t seem to care that Obama uttered the phrase, “all 57 states,” on the campaign trail in 2008. Even first graders know that this is wrong; well, maybe not if they were educated in some of our public school systems.