Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why Hillary’s Lies are Important
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a series of lies and misrepresentations during the primary campaign. To some of her supporters, these lies may seem trivial and insignificant and even politics-as-usual. However, please consider the serious impact of these lies by placing them in the context of the past seven years of the Bush Administration and the legacy of expanded executive power that he leaves behind. In particular, consider the dangerous message that the Clinton campaign sends by employing similar tactics to achieve her political goals.
1. The Florida and Michigan Primaries / The Delegate Count
Hillary agreed to honor the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates after their primaries were moved up into January in express violation of the DNC rules. She did not change her position on the validity of these primaries until she found herself unexpectedly behind in the delegate count and desperately needed to claim the delegates that she had won in these unsanctioned contests. As her chances of winning the nomination became increasingly slim in recent weeks, we have been presented with threatening and desperate lines of reasoning for why these primary results should count as is. At the same time, Clinton and her surrogates continue to propose different metrics for determining who should win the nomination even though there is and has been a clearly defined process in place for several decades.
Please think about the implications of changing election rules after the fact. We have suffered through at least one stolen presidential election and the manipulation of untold numbers of Congressional and state elections through various vote tampering and voter intimidation schemes used by the Republicans and their allies. The American people (and especially Democratic voters) have lost faith in the integrity of the election process. The Clinton strategy to continually change the rules for determining the Democratic Party nominee sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to increasingly un-Democratic elections in the future if it is allowed to succeed. If anything, we need more transparency and methods of accountability in our elections in order to repair the damage done in recent years and to restore our confidence in the Government.
2. The Bosnia Fabrication / Exaggerated Experience Claims
Hillary fabricated a story about a dangerous, life-risking visit to Bosnia in order to gain stature as an experienced negotiator in international conflicts and war. While this type of embellishment can seem almost comical, it represents a willingness to distort reality in order to influence the public perception. This is the same type of distortion that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, although the magnitude of the lie is certainly on a different scale. The Bush administration falsified reports, cherry-picked intelligence, used unreliable sources, and employed fear-mongering tactics to convince the American public that our safety was at risk and as such, you were either with us or with the terrorists. The lies used by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeachable offenses and should be condemned by all Americans. Sadly, the Clinton campaign seems to have shown a shocking willingness to employ the same tactics to create a more favorable reality and to rely on divide-and-conquer rhetoric to weaken opposition. Her attempts to frighten the American people by conjuring up 3 AM phone calls are bad enough, but her vote of confidence in John McCain over Barack Obama should be seen as treason against the Democratic Party.
3. NAFTA
Hillary lied about her position on NAFTA and used her lies in a calculated way to influence the Ohio primary. Recently released White House documents confirm that Hillary had been an active proponent of NAFTA prior to its passage, and she has continued to support it publicly in her speeches and memoir. However, while campaigning in Ohio, she claimed to have been privately against NAFTA during the Clinton presidency and believes that it should be rewritten to protect American jobs and workers. This type of maneuvering is reminiscent of the behind-closed-doors policy-making that the Bush administration has used during the past seven years. Specifically, Bush and Cheney have made policy decisions without providing transparency to Congress or the public, and President Bush has repeatedly ignored the rule of law by issuing signing statements and disregarding the parts of the laws that he doesn’t agree with. If we cannot trust Hillary to be truthful about her positions on critical legislative issues now, how can we trust that she will be truthful as president?
These are just three examples that illustrate the concerns we should have with a candidate who demonstrates a sense of entitlement to the nomination and is willing to lie, misrepresent, threaten, and divide in order to obtain the nomination. President Bush and the neoconservative movement have greatly harmed this country by the creation of an imperial-like presidency. This election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution were in such fear of an imperial president that mechanisms for impeachment are prominently and explicitly included in the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?
Comments (22)
An intelligent post. There's hope yet. I do think the first point, Florida and Michigan, is the most egregious. Granted, the NAFTA lie was a dirty, immoral tactic to remain in the race.
But going back on their commitment about Florida and Michigan, that's nothing less than election fraud. It scares me that it got as far as it did. And to threaten that the whole election is illegitimate as a result is criminal.
I would have kicked them out of the party
March 24, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waldengirl --
excellent and crucial points nicely conveyed!
it appears that the Clintons are so carried away on their own prolific piles of putrid slime that they seem to almost actually believe it themselves, as in dangerously delusional.
maybe that's why they think it works on us the way they intend
March 25, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not only these lies (I'd add another one - the North Ireland peace accord) but the increasingly ruthless tactics and lowblows she has sunk to that really spooked me. Calling Richardson "Judas" for endorsing Obama??? Does he owe Clinton more than his own country??? This is ugly "cronyism" at its worst - it makes me wonder about the other Clinton supporters, if they're doing it out of political favors, fiefdom and servitude. Another early incident, "Travelgate" springs to mind. No doubt that the Republicans are even worse, but it seems the Democratic leaders are no better. This is how the political system has become so corrupted and besieged with incompetence.
This is one of the worst election cycles I've been through and it's not even the GE yet.
March 25, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton didn't call Richardson "Judas".
This constant beating the drum that Clinton is a liar is the same thing the press and repubs did to Gore. Thanks for all your help.
March 25, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will agree with you on not giving her credit for Carville's statements. She is in enough trouble without making her responsible for things she does not controll, like her employees. There is one tiny difference in her situation and Gore's. Hillary actualy did utter the lies she is accused of voicing. In the case of the Bosnia lie she persisted in repeating it even after she was called on it.
March 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
She IS a liar. For example, she lied blatantly and stupidly about that "sniper fire" in Bosnia. Facts are stubborn things, eh?
I used to like her. Now I consider her unfit even for her current office, let alone the presidency.
March 25, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a well reasoned, dispassionate description of the rot at the core of American politics as usual.
Integrity matters. It's time to turn the page...
March 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a big meanie: don't you know that she was "sleep deprived." At least that's what she told the Pittsburgh Post-Review in an interview about the Bosnia. And why do you have to use the word lies? It's so harsh. Why not just call them flip-flops. Even the Washington Posts four Pinocchios sounds better than "lie." Yuck. Judas!
March 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliantly stated.
I have lost all respect for the Clintons and will not be able to vote for Hillary on any ticket and remain in integrity with myself.
Today Senator Obama has regained a huge lead in North Carolina. If only the people of North Carolina could go talk with the people of Pennsylvania and help put Senator Obama over the top in Pennsylvania. Everyone keeps saying that if Senator Obama wins Pennsylvania the race will be over. I know it's a longshot but I can hope and dream, can't I?
March 25, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carville is her campaign spokesperson, and she has not uttered anything remotely resembling a distancing from his insult to Richardson. Samantha Powers had to resign for her "Monster" remark. Carville on the other hand has been emboldened to defiantly doubledown on his!
March 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget lying about and taking credit for SCHIP when it was Ted Kennedy's team that put it all together.
March 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget her phoney tears of humanity.
March 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, despite all of the flaming about how sexist all of Hillary's detractors are I've rarely heard anyone address the tears issue. I guarantee that any man who cried on the campaign trail would be yesterday's news and would probably be looking for a new career. To wit, though men largely have it easier, there are double-standards on the other side as well.
March 25, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I WANT TO FIX HILLARY CLINTON FOR STAYING WITH BILL WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM OVER:
1. HIS ANTIMASTURBATION
2. HIS CHEATING ADULTERY
ALSO IM AGAINST HER NOT LISTENING TO ME ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE ANTI POKER BILL (PHONE CALLS, LETTERS) AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY OVERCHARGING AND AGE DISCRIMINATING. I ALSO BELIEVE LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN THAT BILL CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AFTER ILLEGALLY CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.
March 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very, very intelligent post and brilliant points made. The issue is that Clinton supporters refuse to admit that these problems even exist. They bat them away without a second thought. As long as Clinton supporters refuse to question these things, no real change is going to occur. I admit, many Obama supporters support him without question, but I think that the Rev. Wright issue brought a lot of things to light. Obama, as we all know, brilliantly approached those questions and snuffed the fire before it spread. But Clinton continues to drown herself and her campaign with these numerous fallacies.
I urge all those who support Clinton to please consider the fact that these points mentioned are, in fact, relevant, if for nothing more than the integrity of Senator Clinton. If one can't trust her now, how can one trust her as president? ...
March 25, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm Me thinks you Protestest too loud! Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements
Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left.
"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.
Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]
Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]
Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]
LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]
Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]
Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]
FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]
Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]
ABC News: 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, a=href"http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-exaggerat.html">7/23/07]
Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]
March 25, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately people are quick to forgive Obama, but not so for Hillary. It's typical of denial syndrome.
March 25, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. I thought Waldengirl's excellent post was about Hillary, not Barack. I don't quite understand how your reply is on-topic.
BTW, if you're going to cut-and-past Hillary's talking points, it would be good of you to include the URL so that readers won't accuse you of plagiarism.
For your convenience, the URL is here:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6752
HTH!
March 25, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine that! Political contenders getting carried away on the campaign trail, what next, huh?
March 25, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real winner here is McCain. Unlike both Obama and Clinton, McCain actually DID come under hostile fire. All this does is bolster his CIC credentials, and reminds the white swing voters, that Obama and Clinton have very few. If I were Obama, I'd be careful just how far he goes with this.
March 25, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Hillary cried is a lie. It was endlessly pushed by the sexist media. Watch this video and tell me if you see a single tear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIG1mJAdMv8
Then the Obama team played the race card by claiming she fabricated these "tears" and suggested we look at these "tears" in context of the tears she didn't shed for the victims of Katrina.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA
March 25, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are the SAME EXACT tactics used on Gore by the press and the republican smear machine.
Clinton didn't claim to write the peace treaty in Ireland. Desidero has pointed out numerous times the part she did play in the making of peace. Of course, I don't expect anyone else to actually take the time to research anything, that might burst the bubble you live in.
So she misspoke about Bosnia. Here's some news - there isn't a flight that the President and First Lady have been on that the Secret Service hasn't been afraid of sniper fire. If she got confused, who the hell cares? When Gore misspoke about his trip to Texas with a Witt aide instead of Witt you would have thought he lied about his name.
Mickey Kantor, the author of the NAFTA agreement SAID she had reservations about the trade org. and expressed them to him and to the president. What did you expect her to do? Travel about the country denouncing her husband's policies?
March 25, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment