Comments on Fremon Q&A.

1) First off, as should be obvious, what Fremon has represented as a contiunous, anti-Move-On rant is actually two small snippets from two separate answers that were edited together to make it read/sound like one continuous rant.

I think its pretty obvious that Fremon knew exactly what she was doing here -- normal journalistic practice (I believe) would be to use ellipses when quoting in text form from two entirely separate responses. (actually, normal journalistic practice would not, I believe, allow anything like this to be done at all.)

Here' the quote:

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party

What you actually hear is the word "so" after "slow down", so there is really no question that this was deliberate.

2) Unlike with the Obama quotes, there is no context. One doesn't know if she praised Move-On.org for its overall activism, etc, etc, because Fremon only wants us to hear what she wants to hear.

3) Fremon's excuse for editing these tapes does not hold water. Somehow, she expects us to believe that it is absolutely essential to hide the time and place where this occurred to prevent retaliation from the Clinton camp -- yet anyone else who was there will probably remember the exchange if they hear the tapes, and if the Clinton camp cam find out who did this merely by knowing the time and place, it should be simple enough to email people who attended private fundraisers to find out when this occurred.

One has to conclude that Fremon is being deliberately dishonest for some reason -- one suspects that its because the full tape is not nearly as "damning" as her highly selective excerpts. Regardless, the 'had to edit THIS way to protect the identity of my source' rationale is pure BS.

3) Fremon spoke to Wolfson after the Texas caucuses. She did not disclose where or when this tape had been made. Fremon then asks Wolfon if he had "evidence they had of intimidation at the caucuses" and he responds with Texas and Nevada. Fremon then goes on to write that Nevada happened before the Move-On.org endorsement, and Texas occurred after Clinton made her remarks, thus making Wolfson look like a liar and an idiot.

But if you are asked about evidence of intimidation in the wake of the Texas caucuses, and you don't know that what the questioner is asking about is the basis for Clinton's post Super Tuesday statement (because you haven't been told when or where the tape was made), your answer is going to be focussed on those cases where the campaign did collect "evidence" -- what can be used in a court, or before a credentials committee.

And while there have been numerous reports of improprieties at various state caucuses, only in Nevada and Texas has there been any suggestion of lawsuits/credentials challenges that would require the gathering of "evidence." In Nevada, Obama threatened to challenge caucus delegates because people who showed up after 11:30 were not allowed in -- or at least they were going to challenge, until (apparently) someone hit them over the head with a clue stick by showing them page 53 of the Caucus Rulebook. So this is one case where the Clinton campaign would have wanted their own "evidence" if Obama had filed a challenge to the Nevada delegation.

And while I assume that I don't have to remind anyone about Texas, I will point out that evidence of intimidation and various other infractions was presented to the credentials committees of the County/State Senate District conventions held on March 29.

So, when you are asked about "evidence", the natural response is going to be about "evidence". If you ask about reports of intimidation in Super Tuesday caucus states, you'd get a whole different answer.

In my book, this is such an egregious, and deliberate ethical lapse that it defies description. The whole thing is obviously a hit piece -- and this woman's "I worked to remove all spin" makes Judith Miller's denials look credible by comparison.