The New York Times says Hillary Clinton delivered an acceptance speech that was remarkably without hard facts, and offered few concrete numbers or assertions to examine. There were, however, a few factual assertions that could be checked — so we did. Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech.
Similarly, The Washington Post says Hillary Clinton delivered an acceptance speech that was relatively sparse in terms of facts and figures that could be checked. (We don’t fact-check opinions.) Here’s a roundup of some of the most noteworthy claims that were made. Fact-checking Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech at the 2016 DNC.
Other fact check organizations do not follow the Post‘s policy and subjectively rate opinions. Make of this what you will.
FactCheck.org suggests that Clinton and other Democrats played loose with some facts. FactChecking Clinton’s Big Speech.
Politifact found the few statements it fact checked mostly true (and took a different position than FactCheck.org in some cases, because both are subjective). Fact-checking Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of the Democratic Nomination.
The AP similarly parsed language in being subjective. AP fact check: Hillary Clinton’s speech and other remarks from DNC’s final day. For example:
CLINTON: “We will not ban a religion.”
THE FACTS: Trump never proposed banning Islam in the U.S., as Clinton seems to suggest. He proposed a freeze on the entry of all foreign Muslims into the U.S., then adapted the idea with several iterations. Recently he said he’d stop immigration from any country compromised by terrorism, or impose “extreme vetting” on people coming from places with a history of terrorism. He’s also spoken in support of surveillance on mosques in the U.S. As contentious as his thinking has been on the subject, it hasn’t extended to outlawing a religion.
No, but Trump’s Islamophobic “dog whistle” is understood that way loud and clear by Muslim Americans. Clinton’s statement is a reaffirmation of Democrats’ belief in the First Amendment, and that Democrats will protect Muslim American citizens from such religious bigotry. This is also a perfectly reasonable alternative inference, AP.
POLITICO Tiger Beat on the Potomac says Clinton’s address was long on aspiration and imagery, but was short on the facts. But we’ll find something to say “Hillary Clinton didn’t sweat all the details.” Clinton’s DNC address: Fact or fiction?
So basically Clinton did not give a details oriented speech, because she has already outlined her policies in detail during the campaign and you can find them on her website. Clinton gave an aspirational/inspirational speech. Since there were few hard facts to check, the fact checkers had to find something — anything — to justify their paycheck, and this is the best that they could come up with.