Spinning? Fine. Spinning AND Lying? Not Cool.
Spin, as we usually refer to it, is trying to take facts and present them in a way that is good for one or another candidate. We see this most often when it comes to setting expectations. Candidates try to spin things to set expectations in a given election one way, so that when they meet or break expectations the media writes positive stories about said candidate having "momentum."
Lying, by contrast, is either saying things contrary to the facts, or pretending the facts just don't exist. We saw this most often in the Bush administration's lead-up to the Iraq war, and more recently, in Hillary Clinton pretending that she never supported NAFTA, when, in fact, a decade of public speeches shows she did. Now, Clinton is doing something fairly new: spinning AND lying -- all at the same time.
Here's what ABC News reports that Clinton is now saying:
"We came from so far behind in Indiana. We're still the underdog."
Clinton is trying to set expectations in advance of Tuesday's Indiana primary, with the goal of making it seem as if a victory in Indiana would be "unexpected" and proof that she has "momentum." The spinning part -- the expectations part -- is fine, and no surprise. That's what candidates do, and that's part of politics. What's not fine is the dishonest basis of the storyline. Clinton has been ahead in Indiana from the beginning -- and in, fact, has been ahead in the majority of Democratic primary polls done in the Hoosier state.
As Real Clear Politics shows, Clinton has been ahead or tied with Barack Obama in 12 out of 18 Indiana primary polls. In fact, she's never been behind by more than 5 points -- basically the margin of error in these polls. Put another way, Clinton has been either ahead or right on the cusp of the margin of error in 100% of the polling done in Indiana.
This isn't surprising. Indiana is squarely within the Race Chasm (ie. the group of states whose black populations are above 6% and below 17% of the total population). Clinton has won most of her victories in Race Chasm states. I believe that is, at least in part, because of her deft use and exploitation of racial politics. In other words, Indiana is precisely the kind of state Clinton's scorched earth campaign has proven adept at winning in a Democratic primary -- her being consistently ahead or close is not news because it is to be expected.
But that's not the point here -- and frankly, I don't really care who has been ahead or behind in polls. What's notable -- and disturbing -- is that Hillary Clinton feels the need to lie in very obvious fashion, as if everyone is just too stupid to look up the easily verifiable facts. I'm going to capitalize this and boldface it for emphasis: SHE HAS BEEN EITHER AHEAD OR AT THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN EVERY SINGLE MAJOR POLL* DONE IN INDIANA, YET IS CLAIMING WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT "WE CAME FROM SO FAR BEHIND IN INDIANA."
This is not normal human behavior -- not by a long shot. It's actually rather scary, and it gets to a deeper issue -- the issue of trust. Why does Clinton feel the need to lie in the face of verifiable facts? She did it with NAFTA, she did it with Bosnia and now she's doing it with polling numbers. I just don't get this - and I say that not as a "Hillary hater" but as an honest declaration of frustration. Her behavior tells me she's either so arrogant that she's fine with insulting the public's intelligence with such in-your-face lying, or she's a pathological liar that has gotten so used to lying that she doesn't even know she's doing it anymore.
Look, it's one thing to spin -- it's another thing to spin and lie, all at once. It is that penchant for brazenly trampling the truth that troubles so many people about Clinton.
If you can't trust her to at least acknowledge the verifiable facts, how can you trust that she's serious about doing what she says she'll do as president? I mean, really, would anyone be surprised if - seeing this pathological behavior now -- Clinton gets into the White House, and then pretends she never made all the promises she made as a candidate? I think not -- and that trust issue, more than anything, is what polls show makes so many people uncomfortable with her candidacy.
* UPDATE: A commenter pointed out that in a tiny-sample poll way back in February, Obama was up 15 points. This poll was so insignificant as to not be listed even by RCP, and I think it's a huge stretch to say Clinton -- with all the rest of the polling data over the last few months -- isn't deliberately lying to create a storyline about being "an underdog." Nobody -- not a single honest observer of politics, nor anyone who knows even a shred of political data about Indiana -- thinks Hillary Clinton was "an underdog" in Indiana. It's blatantly ridiculous -- and those who rest that claim on one tiny early, wildly outlying poll are showing they are actually willing to accept pathological lying as truth. All of that said, in the interest of getting all of the data out there, I just wanted to flag it now that someone pointed it out to me.
Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Who's truthful?
counterpunch.com
How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street
Obama's Money Cartel
By PAM MARTENS
Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it’s marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn’t the press curious about this?
Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you’ll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers -- this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.
The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign,
Why hasn't the d.n.c put an end to her campaign.I for the life of me do not understand why they are allowing this republican to destroy our party.
the real question is, was the American people's inability to see through GWB and his lying an anomaly or indicative of a far deeper problem? Did we simply trust him and his administration too much, or did we knowingly on some level choose to turn a blind eye?
Because, if the truth is we chose to turn a blind eye, for whatever reason, that means GWB was OUR fault and it can all happen again.
Corrupt politicians who only care about obtaining power so that they can make money or make their friends money, or just be more powerful are NOT the type of leaders we should be giving the control of our country to. These people don't really want or intend to fix problems, and we Know that, we all know it deep down.
HRC is just lying to us in the same way GWB did/does and McCain is/has. The only reason why we let these politicians get away with this is because it's all we've known for so long. It is as if we are all of us in this abusive relationship with our government. We've been so abused and neglected, we don't think we deserve any better. We've started to believe what the media and politicians are telling us through their actions, that we don't matter.
Hillary has been lying for some time.
1) A number of years ago, a journal announced that she was one of 100 most influential lawyers
in America. This was primarily because her husband was governor in Arkansas. In her mind
this morphed into one of the 100 best lawyers, and she kept saying this until threated by a
lawsuit by the journal.
2) She has made claims about her original work on a health plan, and blamed the republicans
for it's failure, when in truth it was caused by the same arrogance and stupidity she is currently
exhibiting, such as calling all economists (almost all) that don't agree with her "elitists".
3) Her claims of being one of the major contributors to the S-chip bill. Her own colleagues, shot
that claim down, and said her role was minor at best.
4) Her inflated claims about her major role in the Irish peace process, both the British and the
Irish shot that one down. Also she never once mentioned the role of George Mitchell.
In short, this is not a lady to be trusted, and I think Bill is every bit as bad.
Yes, Hillary has been ahead in the Indiana Primaries from the beginning. What's startling?-----MSM is ALLOWING all of Hillary's surrogates to say she was behind. Hey, this is why she's losing the respect of the superdelegates. The Clinton Campaign is "spinning" as if the superdelegates don't have a clue about what's going on.
I used to be a Clinton supporter, but switched to Ombama around the time she made the claim that McCain was better prepared than Obama. More and more, it seems to me, Clinton comes across as a bullsh^tter, in the sense defined in last year's book of the same name: She does not care whether what she says is true. Her recent remarks about economists being elitists and her saying with a straight face that counting the vote in Michigan would be fair (even though Obama was not on the ballot) are other clear cases where she just doesn't care about the truth. On the other hand, Obama seems compelled to speak the truth, no matter how complex, even if it hurts his campaign.
And the latest----Hillary KNOWS that she doesn't have the SLIGHTEST chance of turning her "holiday gas relief" into reality. Again-----she's pandering to suffering Americans---promising and KNOWING it will not happen.
good point findingtt
but my question is...she's (HRC) currently a Senator. If she was so serious about the "gas tax holiday" why has she yet to sponsor a bill??
(Seriously, not trying to be funny) Am I missing something here??
If so, anyone...please advise.
OBAMA 08
I had not decided upon a candidate until after Super Tuesday. The turning point for me came when I heard she was turning to Harold Ickes for advice on attacking Obama. Then I started looking in just who was running her campaign. Same old little oligarchy that surrounded Bill. I felt sick about it.
This post could easily be exhibit A of the cult mentality surrounding Obama.
It clearly demonstrates the mindset of a Hillary-Hater. They always include their disclaimer such as "I say that not as a "Hillary hater" but as an honest declaration of frustration."
and then proceed with a psychopathic screed of hatred, such as: "she's either so arrogant that she's fine with insulting the public's intelligence with such in-your-face lying, or she's a pathological liar that has gotten so used to lying that she doesn't even know she's doing it anymore".
And the most amusing part of this psychosis is that it is all based on a lie, itself. The premise of this mindless was that Hillary said she came from behind. In fact, she did. Of course one needs to go back to February to find the data, before Hillary turned things around w the SNL that made Obama look like the fool he is just before Hillary routed Obama in Ohio and Texas.
There you found from one poster a poll in mid-Feb where she was behind 15 points.
But the main point that destroys your premise is Obama's own data published here:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html
yet another pro-Obama site. This one shows Obama leading Hillary 53-46, yet has all
other surrounding polls similar to what has transpired. i.e. she came back in Indiana - big time.
CultOnObamaniacs.
I suppose that is the "inevitable" behind? Wasn't that all the buzz before any of this started (and before the goal post started moving so much we would have to finish this game in the parking lot)? You do remember that far back (let's say four months) when she was all IT, HRC the Inevitable?
The only psychosis I see is claiming Texas was a win when Obama took more delegates in both primary and caucus, and would have had the popular in the primary if not for the totally inexplicable Republican vote for her. Inexplicable if you don't factor in Operation Chaos.
Ditto the 100,000 Repub. votes in PA.
The true cool-aide drinkers are not Obama supporters, but ones who say that losing a race is winning, up is down, and campaigning against a fellow Democrat using purely Republican methods is somehow showing loyalty to the party.
Hillary has won over 300 electoral votes incl FL/MI. If the race was winner take all in each state the way it is in our Constitutional elections she would have won already.
It is only the screwed up DNC rules pandering to this or that unreachable electorate that enabled Obama to game the system and snatch 150 extra delegates thru the red state caucuses that has given him this contrived unrepresentative lead.
The ongoing pressure of continuing Hillary wins plus the ongoing one after the other gaffes by Obama is rendering him unelectable and properly so for such an unqualified divisive candidate. After throwing Rev Wright under the bus, we await the next absurd self-contradiction that he will make.
Combine this with the nuclear option and Hillary will turn the Convention in her favor. The powers behind the Democratic Party are not going to stand by and self-destruct around an elitist candidate who is so above it all that he cannot understand the fundamental dynamics of working America. Maybe that's because he never had a real job.
These are not poll numbers, they were the Obama campaigns projections, state by state, from the beginning to the end of the primary. While they don't support your claim in the least, they are eerie in their accuracy.
Fingers crossed that he was right on for IN (as he was for so many states!).
I find it hard to take your comments with a gain of salt. First, the column headings are distored and one can't really tell what the numbers represent to any great extent. Yet you try to make it seem as though the speadsheet represents their final take.
Why not post what the blogger really said:..
"They've generously shared the underlying document (.xls), which is really worth a detailed look — though the campaign notes the spreadsheet contains several scenarios, and this one just happens to be the first.
["This 'newsy' spreadsheet is basically an electronic piece of scratch paper with a dozen scenarios blown a little out of proportion," says Obama spokesman Bill Burton.]
The document suggests something that's increasingly becoming clear: It's become virtually impossible to win this contest through the quasi-democratic processes that produce pledged delegates, and that the even murkier process of wooing superdelegates is going to play a central, and growing, role.
The scenario considered in the Bloomberg story forsees the widely anticipated Obama roll through the Potomac Primary, and Clinton victories in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Crucially, it doesn't forecast any blowouts with huge delegate margins; Washington State's caucus, by this projection, offers Obama his widest margin, 20 delegates."
Wow! I'm speechless...
"made Obama look like the fool he is"
"CultOnObamaniacs."
you speak about Hillary Hate, hmm
It's congenital. She can't help it. It feeds into whatever martyr/narcissist complex she's got going on.
HILLARY CLINTON CRIMES
(1) Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades,
from Tyson Foods Inc.
(2) Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing
legislative reform of same.
(3) Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira
Magaziner in Health Care trial.
(4) Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince
Foster's documents in the Rose Law Firm.
(5) Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred
documents that were the target of a court probe.
(6) Ordered the removal of documents from Vince Foster's office.
(7) Told aides to lie about their removal of documents from
Foster's office
(8) Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document
sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.
(9) Lied to investigators about her knowledge about billing
records.
(10) Lied to investigators about her involvement in the Castle
Grande land flip con.
(11) Ordered the use of the FBI to discredit Travel Office
employees.
(12) Lied to investigators about her involvement in the firing of
Travel Office Employees.
HILLARY CLINTON AND BILL CLINTON ARE CON ARTISTS: PROOF -- Trade deals Hillary "says" she is against, her husband Bill Clinton is FOR THEM, and has been collecting money to promote them, for the Columbia trade deal, Bill Clinton has collected $800,000 dollar from the Columbia government to push for the deal to go through.
While Hillary is out "speaking"negatively about China, including the trade deals with China, her husband has collected $1.2 million dollars in speaking fees from Chinese business men, guess what Bill Clinton was doing in his speeches to these men, (he was speaking positively of the CURRENT trade deals that exist.
Hillary "says" she's against NAFTA, but Bill Clinton loves NAFTA, don't be surprised that he will be working to get Hillary to drop the idea of renegotiation.
When nothing gets done about NAFTA, or CAFTA, OR THE TRADE DEAL WITH CHINA, don't be surprised, because Hillary will have her husband in the White House, RECEIVING MILLIONS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES to work against America's interests. Don't worry though, Hillary will make out okay, Bill Clinton will be building the family joint bank account!!!
DON'T PEOPLE SEE HOW CORRUPT THIS ALL IS!! ON TOP OF THAT, WE ARE ELECTING A PERSON WHO CANNOT RUN A CAMPAIGN WITHOUT GOING BANKRUPT IN 8 MONTHS. AND WHO'S ALREADY SHOWN THAT SHE IS A LOVER OF FUZZY MATH.
HOW IS HILLARY GOING TO RUN A COUNTRY WHEN SHE HAS PROBLEMS WITH ACCOUNTING, AND HAS PROVEN THAT SHE CAN'T RUN A CAMPAIGN
What's telling is how MSM totally supports all of her spin&lie narratives. I remember how from the beginning to LESS THAN 2 WEEKS AGO msm had been consistently reporting that Clinton is the heavy favorite to win Indiana, Guam, Pennsylvania (etc, etc, etc) by double digits due to the demographics. Now they are in lockstep with her lie that she's always been behind and that if she wins or comes close it's a great comeback.
They think we don't recall these polls and their vast coverage of them. They are telling us not to believe our lying eyes.
No need to get hinky scary about HRC. Who are you to say she has some kind of pathology?
She's obviously not trustworthy. I think the way D.C. insiders and campaign managers talk to each other just slowly erodes away respect for masses without political power. Obama's not there yet.
You claim that she is insulting Americans' intelligence. This is true; however she gets away with it because her constituency (low-education, low-awareness, lunchbucket democrats) get their news from a scan of the morning paper, or maybe a 30 minute nightly news segment on one of the broadcast networks.
Obama's supporters are made up of the intelligentsia, so naturally we not only have the time and disposable income to scour the internets for Clinton lies, we naturally aggregate far, far more information. Hillary's voters can't tell when she's lying except in the rare instance that somebody bludgeons them over the head with it.
Add to that their older demographic, and the cynical attitude that "everybody does it" excuses their continued support.
why, how elitist of you.
while you scouring the internet did you find the lies Obama told to the citizens of this country when he took credit for two senate bills that he had nothing to do with at all?
which two bills NCMan....
please go on.
or is this another instance of a rabid HilLiary supporter spinning his way around the web?
NCMan,
Put up (the evidence) or shut up.
Either way, it says nothing about the reality of HRC lying whenever it suits her. It says nothing about her Republican-esque campaign of fear.
I really don't understand where this rabid loathing of Obama comes from - you seem almost as bad 'RichLiberal', above, who relies mainly on the nonsensical 'cult of Obama' jibes to make his case.
Sad stuff.
Is he 'acting like it' (in your interpretation) or is he saying it? If the latter where is the quote? If you ain't got a quote and this is just about your interpretations and exaggerations, then put a sock in your mouth and stop impuning the man.
CHARGE 5 - “President Kennedy rescued my father from Kenyan obscurity and airlifted him to the American Dream.”
EVIDENCE – Senator Obama’s father came in September 1960, while EISENHOWER was President. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2
COUNTER CLAIM – But his father did come to the U.S. so what is the big deal?
REBUTTAL – Senator Obama misrepresents historical events. No speech by President John F. Kennedy brought Senator Obama’s father to the U.S. in 1960. John F. Kennedy was not President in 1960, Dwight D. Eisenhower was President. The Senator is attempting to subtly equate himself with J.F.K., subconsciously implying he would be a similar President. Senator Obama, you are no Jack Kennedy.
VERDICT - SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
Are you kidding me with this? How lame! Seriously.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
