Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
March 5, 2008 10:33 AM
The Clinton-Lieberman Connection
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.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Teaching McCain Econ 101
- Fox News at 5:15 EST
- Will the Elite Pay Their Fair Share?
- What's Right and Wrong With This Picture
- Bill Kristol Needs to Get Out More
- Six Words for Better Wages...And Why We Need to Promote Ideological Warriors
- What A Huge Scandal!
- Radio West
- Report: America's "Free" Trade Policies Harming Rural Latin America
- Free Speech TV
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
July 29, 2008 -
July 23, 2008 -
July 15, 2008 -
July 8, 2008 -
July 1, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
Since Clinton and Lieberman vote alike most of the time anyway, this new revelation about their connection can't be all that surprising. That makes Democrats racist.
spankinrankin: racist in what way?? and how and why? Your last sentence needs explaining.
And as I recall so vividly, the voters that you speak of are the ones that the LIEberman campaign derisively referred to as the "low information voters", the ones whose level of intelligence mor motivation to learn might not allow for differentiating fact from fiction.
When I saw Hillary's 3am ad, all the nightmares from the Lamont-LIEberman campaign came flooding back. I hoped that the voters of Ohio and Texas would see through the lies and disinformation. Sadly, the polling numbers of last minute decision makers suggests that they did not.
But what makes me angriest of all is that these are NOT the kind of campaign tactics that I want to see from any of my candidates. Going negative is one thing. Lying and distorting the truth in order to win is quite another. Do we really want another president like that?
The Clinton-LIEberman anaology is "spot on".
Ok, fine, they're not completely racist. However, unlike people like myself who are attacked as racist just because I hold a Confederate Flag, the Democrats allow the media and the Republicans to misuse the race card in their political bullshit "analysis". Until the Democrats quit pandering to the media, I'll keep treating the party as a perfect shooting target.
Mr. Sirota, you worked against Lieberman in 06. I see no reason why you should promote or endorse in any way Hillary if she wins the nomination.
Just because she is a Democrat, doesn't mean she should have your support. I'm not saying to vote or work for Nader or any other 3rd party, but you can abstain from voting. Which is what I think I'll do if she is the nominee.
I think I'm beginning to understand. The GOP Presidential ticket will be:
John "The Maverick" McCain and
Hillary "I've Always Been a Republican" Clinton
McCain-Clinton '08
War without end, Amen
In regards to the subject matter of misinformation Reuters Reports:
Shortly after, a memo circulated that was written by a Canadian diplomat after a February 8 meeting in Chicago with Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee.
"He (Goolsbee) was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the memo read.
______________
The Canadians are very embarrassed that notes from the meeting were leaked, and there may be an investigation by the Mounted Police concerning it, but that doesn't discount the fact that Obama's chief Economic Adviser Austan Goolsbee was having meetings with Canadian officials, which were thought to be private, saying that Obama's trade policies were "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy". I know since then Obama has distanced himself from those remarks, but why has Austan Goolsbee not been fired as of yet. Either he lied about Obama's position, or he did not, which is it?
Regards,
There are also reports that during internal discussions regarding NAFTA, Hillary Clinton was skeptical about the agreement voicing her concerns (this has since been corroborated by David Gergen). She has said publicly in years past a couple of comments which can be construed as positive about NAFTA, but as Lou Dobb's said last night, what is wrong with having made a couple of statements years ago, then when seeing the empirical evidence showing the contrary, change your view.
What concerns me more than her statements made years ago, are Obama's chief Economic Adviser having discussions with Canadian officials 25 days ago, saying that his trade positions are more for political maneuvering than they are policy.
FLGibsonJr:
Nothing wrong with someone changing their views - as long as they acknowledge they are changing their views, rather than attempt to pretend they never had those views. I find it sickening that people trust Washington insiders like David Gergen claiming - without any actual proof, of course - that Hillary was against NAFTA, when she herself has spent the last 10 years promoting it publicly with her own words.
On the Goolsbee story, I was disturbed by it, but remember that it was A) uncorroborated B) pushed by not exactly a credible source - a right-wing, pro-NAFTA government. It's the equivalent of a Democrat having a meeting with the Bush White House, and the Bush White House claiming the Democrat said something - and then all of us out here simply accepting the Bush White House's assertions.
I don't see whats the whining is about, compared to what Kerry and Biden did to Dean in '04 this campaign is mild.
And ts nothing compared to what Kerry went through in the general or what Max Cleland suffered through when the GOP got their hands on them.
This is the big leagues where people play hard, so harden up.
As to the Canada-NAFTA gate, Obama and his progressive supporters have yet to explain why he has as is chief economic adviser the DLC's senior economist who is PRO-unfettered Free trade, against universal health care and pro business in general.
My first thoughts when I heard the comments coming from Canada, was that the Clinton team had put the Canadians up to it.
Canada has a vested interest in promoting the candidate of their choice in the US. If they can drop a little bomb here and there, and then drag their feet correcting or explaining the bomb, then all the better for the candidate of their choice.
The Clinton's have long coat-tails and intend to keep them. The Canadian government has lurched to the far right, and intends to stay there.
This is another incomparably brilliant post. It seems most of us are stuck between a lot of rocks and a lot of hard places called candidates for president of the United States. I know I am. I just hope Ralph comes alive. votenadar.com. I just had a conversation today stating that Reagan is the one who first justified campaign lying euphemistically as "campaign rhetoric" in response to a reporters question right after the election. Now they all think this is OK because campaign rhetoric is not lying. Where are all the lawyers when you need them? Why doesn't someone launch a fraud suit against these liars and expose them if nothing else?
spankinrankin
I usually ask "confederates" who they fought against. The customary response is Yankee's, the Union, the "north", or nigger lovers. I never hear, "soldiers and civilians of the United States of America." I wonder what spin would have to be put on an excuse for an American to kill American soldiers and still think of themselves as loyal? Confederates are traitors, always have been, always will be. Who are you fighting?
I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. NAFTA has some very good qualities that have brought our three democratic countries to a more level playing field. Truth is I'd rather see a job lost to Mexico or Canada, than communist China or Vietnam. I have no beef with the Chinese or Vietnamese people, but that is the form of government they have chosen, they should lie in the bed they made. Let's see if we can fix the problems we see with NAFTA, before we throw it away.
I not willing to cut Obama any slack on the Goolsbee-Canada fiasco. Yes, Hillary is a shameless con artist like Lieberman, but Obama has had over a month to seal the deal with would be Edwards voters on populist issues like trade.
Obama had Edwards's man, Leo Hindery's endorsement, but I did not see any attempt to capitalize on it. Obama could have anounced that he is offically adding Hindery as one of his chief domestic advisors.
Hopefully Obama has learned a thing or two and will fire Goolsbee and replace him with a Fair Trader like Ralph Gomery.
However, the one fear I have is that it is possible with the US's massive Federal, Trade and consumer deficits, we have lost all control of over our own Economic policy. What is to stop the Chinese, Japanese, Korea, Canada, OPEC, hell even Mexico from dictating what our trade policy should be.
It would be very worth one's time to download a bittorrent of the outstanding BBC's documentary series The Mayfair Set by Adam Curtis on how decades of bad policy and free market fundamentalism lead to Great Britain's surrender of its economic sovereignty to market forces and globalism. I would say that it is possible that the US is now in the same boat as England.
bluto,
I may have a Confederate flag on my pickup truck and even a blanket woven with that symbol but in no way am I racist. I understand that there are some with Confederate Flags that show their racism but most of us ordinary joe-six-packs down south aren't part of it. On the other hand, NAFTA is a perfect example of a trade sham designed to promote more slave labor and no rights or protections for workers. If you want to reform NAFTA where it counts, I'm all for it.
What was it Tricky Dick Nixon said?
Oh yeah, "Voters quickly forget what a man says."
COProgressive:
Unless that person is so vile that no one can ever forget their lies, faux pas, and malaprops.
spankinrankin:
What gives with confederate flag, anyway? Do you long to form a confederacy again and re-institute slavery? And yes, flying a confederate flag doesn't necessarily mean you are a racist, but it sure doesn't help.
Any opinions on why the right wing, gop loving Canadian Conservative party, would prefer Clinton to Obama?
Join the Discussion