Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Paul Rogat Loeb Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:00 PM
Original message
Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?
Suppose someone in the North Korean government released a false story that shifted a key American election. If Bush were negatively affected, we might be bombing Pyongyang by now. But this just happened with what Hillary Clinton called "NAFTAgate" Without it, she might never have won Ohio, or her margin would have been minuscule. But as a Canadian Broadcasting Company story reveals, practically the entire story was a lie, one that played so central a role in Clinton's Ohio victory as to thoroughly taint any claim she raises about a swing state mandate.

As the Ohio primary approached, Obama was steadily closing what a month earlier had been a 20-point lead in the polls. He pointed out that the NAFTA trade agreement was a centerpiece of Bill Clinton's term and that it cost massive numbers of industrial jobs. Instead of creating a trade-fueled boom, NAFTA helped hollow out America's industrial base, with over 200,000 manufacturing jobs disappearing in Ohio alone since the 2000 election. Even Republicans I talked with while calling the state just before the primary made clear that they thought it was a disaster.

Given these sentiments, Hillary chose not to defend her husband's actions, but instead claimed Obama was distorting her position because she'd privately opposed the agreement at the time, had "long been a critic" and now similarly supported stronger labor and environmental standards. Echoing her reinvention on the Iraq War, these claims were flat-out nonsense. As David Sirota points out, she'd praised NAFTA repeatedly in public settings from the time of its inception, even praising corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort" on behalf of its passage. And as Obama highlighted their contrasting positions and approaches on this and other issues, he was gaining in the polls.

Then, on Feb 27, the Canadian network CTV reported that even as Obama was publicly attacking Bill's role in NAFTA, and arguing for a drastic overhaul, he'd had key economic advisor Austin Goolsby arrange a meeting with the Canadian ambassador where Goolsby reassured them that this was all just "political positioning," pandering for campaign trail. The likely source of the anonymous Valerie Plame-style leak was right-wing Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, and US media jumped all over it as proof of Obama's hypocrisy. The Canadian embassy denied the story and Obama also said it was false. A follow-up March 3d leak then sent a supposed memo summarizing the meeting to the major US media outlets, quoting Goolsby as saying Obama's statements were more "political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans." Clinton made the controversy a centerpiece of her home stretch speeches and ads, saying "You come to Ohio and you both give speeches that are very critical of NAFTA and you send out misleading and false information about my position regarding NAFTA and then we find out that your chief economic advisor has gone to a foreign government and basically done the old wink wink, don't pay any attention this is just political rhetoric." She even ran a radio ad that misleadingly presenting itself as a news story, which concluded, "As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada."

John McCain similarly attacked Obama for the presumed contradiction in his stand, saying "I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian Ambassador and telling him something else. I certainly don't think that's straight talk." The week before, key Clinton ally, Machinist's Union head Tom Buffenbarger used recycled language from ads the right-wing Club For Growth ran against Howard Dean by dismissing Obama supporters as "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." He now attacked Obama again by saying, "Working families cannot trust a candidate who telegraphs his real position to a foreign government and then dissembles in a nationally televised debate."

These attacks unquestionably made a difference. They flipped voter perceptions on an issue where Obama should have had a key advantage. In 1994, union, environmental, and social justice activists were so angry at Clinton's staking all his political chips to pass NAFTA that many sat out that critical election, helping lead to Gingrich's win. Now Clinton ended up getting a majority the 55 percent of Ohio voters who expressed a sense "that trade takes jobs away," a majority of those worried about their family's economic situation, and a majority of union members, whom Obama won in his recent victories. She won a 10 percent plurality in a state where Ohioans overwhelmingly picked the economy as the top issue. And she won overwhelmingly with late-breaking voters, the opposite of practically all of Obama's other campaigns. Most important, by casting doubt on Obama's integrity, the cornerstone of his campaign, they made him seem like just another hack politician who'd say anything to win. This gave the supposed scandal a probable impact in Texas and Rhode Island as well, even though NAFTA was less of a central issue there.

But as the CBC report and others makes clear, the core of the story turned out to be false. The Canadian government contacted Goolsby to clarify Obama's position on trade, not the reverse. Although Goolsby did meet with Canada's Chicago consul general George Rioux (not, as was reported in the original leak, Ambassador Michael Wilson), there's no evidence that he ever described Obama's position as mere political posturing. Instead, Goolsby responded to Canadian questions by clarifying that Obama wasn't pushing to scrap the agreement entirely, but that labor and environmental safeguards were important to him. The memo was simply inaccurate, as even the Harper government now acknowledges after a firestorm of criticism by opposition parliament members, who've accused the Harper government of trying to help their Republican allies across the border by trying to take down the likely and stronger of the Democratic candidates. In response, Harper called the leak "blatantly unfair," pledged to get to the bottom of it, and said "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

Ironically, the day before the story hit American TV, Brodie, told reporters questioning him on trade that "someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . .That someone called us and told us not to worry." But that never made the headlines and no one raised it in the campaign.

As Matt Wallace writes in the Daily Kos, "this scandal was manufactured out of whole cloth. Goolsbee said something consistent with Obama's official position--that he wanted protections added, but it wasn't going to be a fundamental change or revocation of NAFTA, and that Obama was not a protectionist. This was morphed somewhat going into the memo, and now the embassy admits they "may have misrepresented the Obama advisor." Even after the memo misrepresented Obama, the Harper government took it a step further and then leaked a completely fantastic version of the story to the press, in order to maximize the bloodletting."

The Harper government has now apologized for any interference in an American political campaign, but the damage is done. Clinton had other factors that benefited her this round, including pretty questionable ones. Her 3:00 AM ad echoed the worst of Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. When asked if she'd "take Senator Obama on his word that he's not a Muslim," she left the door open to the right wing lies by saying "there's nothing to base that on. As far as I know." She just handed McCain his campaign script by saying, "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." These, taken together with a week of media framing that the respected Project for Excellence in Journalism described as overwhelmingly critical of Obama, and initial twenty five-point margins based on name familiarity and insider connections, also contributed strongly to her Ohio victory. Back-to-back sympathetic Saturday Night Lives shows (the first after the strike) probably helped as well, as did support from popular governor Ted Strickland. Clinton may even have benefited from Rush Limbaugh's exhortation to his listeners to cross over and vote for her to keep the Democrats bloodying each other up. But "NAFTAgate" was key. Without it her victory would have been non-existent or minimal. The nine delegates Clinton netted from Ohio can't be changed, but the salience of this lie casts into doubt everything she says about the lessons of this victory.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email mailto:sympa@lists.onenw.org ">sympa@lists.onenw.or g with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. No
BTW your posting makes it look like my computer is infected with the virus that turns words blue to direct me to advertising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Acually it's a trojan virus that makes everything look like GD: Primaries
which is where this belongs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hillary to Ohio, "SUCKER. I'll laugh the rest of my life at your ignorant asses!"
http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/03/the_clinto...

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 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.

Hillary Clinton no longer a Dem, it's time she learned the Zell Miller rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOytXkCw0NY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danzo Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Excuse Me?
There is ZERO evidence to support your premise that Hillary was LYING when she said she opposed NAFTA IN PRIVATE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. but she definitely SUPPORTED NAFTA publicly - and now claims she didn't
:eyes:
so your ire over a poster saying Hillary lied about NAFTA is based on the most insignificant hair splitting imaginable, but hey - if you are comfortable with a candidate who parses to the level of stating she has a record opposing something in private forever while supporting it in public - LOL! That's your right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danzo Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. What Can I Say? I'm Committed To Honesty.
Former White House Advisor David Gergen CONFIRMS that Hillary was "very unenthusiastic" about NAFTA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJxtzLQ51Q
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'll be interested to see how this shakes out.
If true, this is pure Nixonian dirty trickery. (And I don't mean in the Nixon-Went-To-China good way)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. okay, that was a long post.
but I have to say, that even if it was all false, it wasn't the only reason Clinton won Ohio. There was a lot we weren't ready for. The Obama is a Muslim e-mail truly infected a ton of people here. I hear it everyday. Even from people that are Dems or people that I thought for sure would know better. Also, the Clinton campaign just dominated the Press - she controlled the message. She worked the Media.

If we had a do-over, I would definitely recommend a strategy to get the truth out to more people about the e-mail and as far as the NAFTA thing goes - the Obama campaign could have spun it better. In the end, Ohioans aren't worried about losing their job to Canada - there probably could have been some kind of spin to point that out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. When did this story first break?
I don't remember and I'm too lazy to look. Do you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. No, she didn't. She won because the people distrust an empty suit
Obama flubbed on the Canada memo, and looked weak and ineffective in the wake of the 3am ad.

The cult of personality is getting exposed, this is the beginning of the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. "Being of the End?"
Isn't that what comes before the End?

And wasn't The End acheived by Hollery in, lemme see now, Iowa?

:sarcasm:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danzo Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. Also...
The actual VOTING RECORD, SUPPORTS the premise that Hillary is supports strong labor standards. She voted against CAFTA twice. In fact, since 2005, Hillary and Barack's votes on key trade issues have been INDENTICAL:

Obama:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=949...

Hillary:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=554...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Esya Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. you asked for it
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

If you weren't so wrapped up in winning a contest instead of supporting a cause, you could recognize that this is funny. After all the heat she got for being a humorless bitch, you could at least give her credit for loosening up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ExtraGriz Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. she whooped his butt good
plain and simple...even all that money didnt do him any good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traditional Liberal Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. We do not need
another triangulating Clinton in the Whitehouse.

She is way too centrist for this traditional liberal. You can dream all you want about how great a President she would be, but they are all just illusions. She is dead center of the political spectrum, which is why she won Ohio and all the blue collar vote there, and why Texas was a narrow victory for her...

If you want to elect another Democrat power-broker-Uber-centrist, you go right ahead.

I'm voting for a real liberal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
17. Maybe this is payback.....
I don't know what's true anymore... there is so much going back and fourth. I do know that the Clintons were reported to be furious over the Obama campaign's swiftboating on race in SC. Maybe this is payback. Who knows....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 04:26 AM
Response to Original message
18. Well, several lies, some emotional outbursts, and a very negative attack strategy.
Not *just* a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bennyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
19. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jun 28th 2017, 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC