Confusion and misinformation are two of the most powerful weapons in a desperate politician's arsenal. They were used by Joe Lieberman in the 2006 general election against Ned Lamont, and exit polls suggest that they helped Hillary Clinton blast her way through yesterday's primary in Ohio.
Over the last few weeks, Clinton has been telling Ohio voters she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement -- an agreement that has become a symbol of corrupt economic policies to many working-class voters. Clinton has made these claims expecting everyone to forget her speeches over the last decade trumpeting NAFTA as a great success.
Her direct quotes praising NAFTA repeatedly are not up for interpretation -- and neither are her absurd claims to "have been against NAFTA from the beginning." We're talking about pure, unadulterated lying here -- and lying with a purpose: To confuse enough voters into thinking she actually did oppose NAFTA and that her strong support for NAFTA is somehow the same as Barack Obama's longtime opposition to the pact. Last night's results prove the scheme worked.
CBS News reports that "among Ohio voters who expressed that trade takes jobs away, 55 percent supported Clinton." The Associated Press has some more details:
Clinton's past support of the North American Free Trade Agreement didn't hurt her in Ohio where most voters think trade with other countries has cost the state jobs. Blue-collar workers and voters who live in union households backed Clinton as did voters in northern Ohio where manufacturing job losses have been staggering the past decade, according to exit polls for The Associated Press and television networks. Clinton won nearly six in 10 votes from union households in Ohio's Democratic primary Tuesday and the same number among people who earn less than $50,000 a year.
If this all sounds familiar, that's because it is. Here's an excerpt of a 2006 article I wrote for In These Times about the Lieberman-Lamont race:
As the Associated Press confirmed, Lieberman's margin was provided by a segment of voters who are strongly against the war, but who (wrongly) believed Lieberman is strongly against the war. Their misperception was no accident. Immediately after the primary, Lieberman unleashed an ad campaign to portray himself as anti-war, airing an ad where he says to the camera "I want to help end the war in Iraq."...Lieberman won the election not by defending the Iraq War, but by successfully convincing a key segment of voters that he was anti-war...[Lamont's] internal polling showed that somewhere between 12 and 15 percent of the population said they simultaneously opposed the war and supported Lieberman's position on the war--a signal that Lieberman's confusion campaign was working.
Clinton was actually even more brazen than Lieberman. Not only did she lie about her record, she actually went on the offensive attacking Obama over the very trade deal she has long championed, "rais[ing] doubts about whether he was committed to reworking NAFTA," as the AP noted. To use the Lieberman-Lamont analogy, that's would be like Lieberman not only pretending to be against the war, but actually attacking Lamont for not opposing the war more strongly. Even Lieberman wasn't cravenly dishonest enough to do that -- but Clinton was.
The tragedy, of course, is that when such tactics are validated -- whether on the war in Connecticut or on trade in Ohio -- it encourages candidates and politicians to continue lying about the most important issues. And those lies end up polluting the debate and ultimately preventing any real change. If politicians can be rewarded for lying about their record on the war and on globalization, then they will feel emboldened to keep lying when those rhetorical debates turn into legislative negotiations.
Reducing Obama's illustrious career to one speech was utterly bitchy especially given that the speech elucidated the error of the IWR.
The NAFTA maneuver was despicable.
Wolfson = Rove
Always appreciate your commentary.
tthen we have limbaugh and coulter supporting hillary . . . why are the alarm bells ringing louder to more Dems . . . sure wish they would wake up and see what the clintons really are . . .
WE have to fight stronger against them . . . and somehow make them start to think and question . . . because the clintons will destroy the Democratic party . . . and they will continue the bush agenda . . . they have absolutely no moral scruples . . . they are driven by ruthless ambition in the quest for power . . . and have to be stopped.
Meanwhile, she alienated most of the antiwar change crowd by kneecapping Obama. She is not going to win. All that she is accomplishing is tanking the Democratic Party. That's the good old DLC for you.
You think things are tough now-? Wait until we have McCain as president and Lieberman as Secretary of State!
The Clinton supporters don't seem to care if she lies, as long as she gets into office.
The Obama supporters don't seem to care if he lies, as long as he gets into office.
See. Just as stupid either way.
Thing is, NAFTA has been good on the whole for the US/Canadian economies. Certainly there are swaths of the country in specific industries that have taken it up the 'chute, but she successfully played the white, uneducated (and apparently unemployed still?), racist Ohioans like the Right Honorable Senator Liebermenschen irregardless of the truth.
I'm waiting to see those tax returns. I want to know how Bill funneled his Kazakstani dictator money into her campaign. It should be fun.
Guess if you mentioned that it would put a wrench in your whole Clinton is a liar, and a closet Republican like Joe Lieberman theory...
Most importantly - What is the correct solution to quickly counter this type of lying? What has worked in the past? Can you please provide accurate examples? If you do not know, could you please have a crash meeting with those who might know?
All day, I've been trying to get my head around Ohioans, who clearly consider themselves beaten up by NAFTA, voting for Mrs Clinton, whose husband brought down NAFTA on their heads.
I hope Obama can use the lie somehow.
I was watching a Roseann Barr HBO special and she had a great bit:
"Why do working class people vote Republican? Isn't that like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders?"
Isn't it nice that we are getting back $300 of our own taxpayer money? With all the money we are just throwing away in a thousand different ways through corruption, no bid contracts, price gouging, theft, Blackwater and general incompetence yet STILL are soldiers are going without the rest, training, equipment and Veterean's care they so richly deserve.
Luckily for Bush with McCain at the helm there will never be any sincere investigation of this travesty.