Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Visit the Democratic Party
David Sirota Lies About Hillary Clinton
The last two Presidential elections were stolen by rightwing Republicans using personal lies against our Democratic candidates, which were then amplified and legitimized by the Corporate Media.
For Gore, it was little lies like "Gore said he invented the internet" and "Gore said Love Story was based on his life and Tipper's life" - trivial but utterly false attacks that the Corporate Media treated as true and aggregated into a monumental "character issue" that disqualified (in their minds) Gore from the Presidency. Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler chronicled this in great detail then and ever since.
For Kerry, it was the Big Lie of the Swift Boat Veterans, who blatantly lied that Kerry shot himself and wrote his own Purple Heart review - which Joe Scarborough amplified and legitimized night after night on MSNBC with the help of Nixon-Reagan-Bush propagandist Pat Buchanan.
So this time around I'm going to do everything in my power to stop lies and smears about Democratic candidates dead in their tracks.
Most of the lies and smears come from the right, as we saw on Tuesday when John McCain said "how do we stop the bitch" was "an excellent question" after cracking up - and then lied about it.
But there will be plenty of lies from the left, especially if Hillary Clinton is the nominee - and I'm going to denounce them just as forcefully.
Today's Hillary Lie comes from David Sirota, who opposes "Free Trade" for corporations (like NAFTA) that screws working people on both sides, a position I largely agree with. Unfortunately Sirota is so blinded by his rage at "free trade" that he can't see the truth when it is staring him in the face.
Watch Sirota's video clip from Thursday's Democratic debate. Sirota ferociously claims Hillary's quip "was by far the most insulting comment of the evening - and likely the one that will come back and haunt Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary."
Really, what an offensive statement Clinton made to the millions of American and Mexican workers who lost their jobs and saw their wages destroyed thanks to NAFTA - a deal pushed by the Clinton administration (for some more data on NAFTA, see this report from the Economic Policy Institute). You want to talk about showing how utterly out of touch you are, that's how you do it - you laugh and say you barely remember the debate over the very trade deal that is destroying America's middle class.
If you watch the video with your eyes and ears open, Hillary did indeed laugh - after the audience started laughing. Was the Democratic audience in Las Vegas laughing at the debate over NAFTA and thereby offending "the millions of American and Mexican workers who lost their jobs and saw their wages destroyed thanks to NAFTA"?
Absoutely not.
They were laughing over Ross Perot, who has faded from public life but is largely remembered for his comic antics and charts, perfectly epitomized by his chosen theme song - "Crazy."
Hillary joined in the audience's laughter and her quip articulated the reason why they laughed - the shared memory of Crazy Ross Perot.
Q: All of us remember the big NAFTA debate when your husband was President of the United States and a lot of us remember the debate between Al Gore, who was then Vice President, and Ross Perot. Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA. Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right?
[Laughter first from the audience, then Hillary]
A: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts. That sort of is a vague memory
Yes David, you're the exception, but for 99.9% of us, the Perot-Gore debate is "a sort of vague memory."
Hillary didn't insult me or any of the rest of us who laughed at Ross Perot.
But you just insulted our intelligence by lying to us - and you owe all of us an apology.
- Bob Fertik's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
The last two Presidential elections were stolen
The last two Presidential elections were stolen by rightwing Republicans using personal lies against our Democratic candidates, which were then amplified and legitimized by the Corporate Media.
Yes, the last two Presidential elections were stolen, but while the lies told against Gore and Kerry did occur and probably did have some GOP-desired negative impact on the number of people who voted for Gore and Kerry, they did not cause the loss of our last two elections to the GOP. In the case of Gore, there was the flawed butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County which alone sunk the election for Gore (even Pat Buchanan proclaimed that there was no way that 3000 people from that primarily-Democratic county voted for him), not to mention that the SCOTUS prevented any possibility of a full recount that, when performed later by interested parties, proved positive for Gore. In the case of Kerry, there were serious discrepancies between the exit polls and the final tallies not only in Ohio but in many other states that remained unexplained until recently (see especially: Was the 2004 presidential election stolen? by Steven E. Freeman & Joel Bleifuss).
I think it's really great and also admirable that you want to spend effort countering lies about Democratic candidates before they gain momentum - it's important work and should be done by someone - I just think it's also extremely important to be very clear that there are serious problems with the DRE voting machines that have no paper trail and that are vulnerable to flipping of results in the blink of an eye with no one being able to trace who did it when or how. We need to get rid of these machines and go back to paper ballots everywhere so that we can be confident that the people who get into office are the ones the majority voted for.
i agree completely
and i "blogged" the 2000 Stolen Election long before the word "blogging" was invented - see
http://gorewonflorida.org
bob
Sirota's "lie" about Hillary
Can’t agree with you on this one, Bob. I really don’t see how you can call Sirota’s comment a “lie” as much as a difference of interpretation of, and personal reaction to, Hillary’s response to the question. To me, a “lie” is a deliberate attempt to deceive, involving in some fashion an identifiable misrepresentation of “fact.” So exactly what “fact” is Sirota misrepresenting in this case?
Wolf Blitzer asks Hillary a straightforward question about a serious and potentially embarrassing topic: her past, current and (apparently) future support of NAFTA-like trade agreements. Does she answer the question in any serious manner? No, she sidesteps it entirely, preferring to ridicule the much maligned Perot (who was right on NAFTA all along). In a court of law, if she were testifying under oath, the judge might well deem her answer "nonresponsive." If an individual whose livelihood has been directly harmed by NAFTA finds her cavalier non-answer to the question personally insulting, as I do, then for me to state that fact is not a “lie” but an honest expression of my “opinion.”
By the way, the debate in question, in 1992, involved Perot vs. Bill Clinton vs. Bob Dole, not Gore versus Perot.
Sirota deliberately misrepresented
what Hillary (and the audience) were laughing about.
She (and the audience) weren't laughing about NAFTA or the broader "NAFTA debate" of the time.
She (and the audience) were laughing specifically about the memory of Crazy Ross Perot.
And that's why she mentioned "a bunch of charts" - which was Perot's trademark.
There's no way to watch the video and come to any other conclusion, unless you're deliberately trying to misrepresent Hillary's laugh and remarks - which is exactly what Sirota did.
And in my book, that's a lie.
It's not that simple
Of course, ostensibly she is laughing at Ross Perot. I don’t think David Sirota would deny that. But Blitzer’s question was primarily about NAFTA and only incidentally about Ross Perot. What I see on the video is Hillary evading the substance of the question while simultaneously ridiculing an anti-NAFTA symbol--“Crazy” Ross Perot, as you put it.
Ross Perot was a bit eccentric, but a supremely successful businessman. At the time of the 1992 presidential campaign, NAFTA was an issue that meant virtually nothing to most people, who found it dry, unsexy and incomprehensible - exactly how its authors intended it to seem. Perot attempted to do what the media and his presidential opponents failed to do, to educate the public on why this matter was important to them and to the country at large, largely through personal funding. He used pie charts and a lot of home-spun phrases and analogies, had short stature, big ears and a funny Texas accent, and had virtually no chance of winning. Did that really make him “Crazy” though? It seems like Perot’s dire predictions about the trade deficit and the loss of manufacturing jobs have all come to pass.
So we are left with an association: Anti-NAFTA = Ross Perot = CRAZY. It’s so funny I’m splitting a gut. And it’s so much easier to laugh at CRAZY Ross Perot than to answer inconvenient questions about one’s positions. And in MY book, that is the definition of disingenuousness.
And all of this has to do
And all of this has to do with your and Sirota's mischaracterization of the moment how? Perot was a "spoiler" just like Nader, and deserves to be laughed at. At the time, Perot was the political laughing stock of the nation, and was the staple of late-night comedians. Most people still carry this picture of him in their heads.
I am not "defending" Hillary's non-response to the NAFTA question, but such is the nature of politics and politicians. She was NOT laughing at the question, but at the audience's reaction to the mention of Perot -- she is very good at "reading" her audience. Her stance on NAFTA is an important point, and will need to be addressed eventually, but please don't try to twist this particular incident into something it was not.
Bob is correct, and Sirota is wrong (which wouldn't be the first time for David).
Not a mischaracterization
As to Perot's alleged role as "spoiler" in the 1992 election, most analysts concluded that he "stole" more votes from "Poppy Bush," thereby helping Bill Clinton (as did the other "spoiler," Pat Buchanan).
I realize that the rules of this forum dictate that we, at least in posting, support whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination, and I am prepared to do so, but can you imagine, just for the sake of debate and free speech, a scenario in which both the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees were corporate stooges, opposed by an independent third-party populist who actually expressed your own values? Would that make the independent a "spoiler" who deserves to be laughed at?
Thank you, at the very least, for admitting that Hillary totally avoided acountability for her past, present and future positions on the issue of NAFTA, which really is what should concern those of us who would potentially vote for her in upcoming Democratic primaries. I don't believe I am mischaracterizing anything. I am merely offering the opinion that Hillary had so much contempt for the question that she decided to play it for laughs rather than disclose her position to a voting public that is entitled to know where the candidates stand on the issues.
Again, you and David Sirota
Again, you and David Sirota are simply wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Anyone who runs on a third-Party political fringe platform for an office that they have no conceivable chance of winning, is a deliberate spoiler -- regardless of which mainstream Party they take votes away from.
And yes, any third-Party so-called "populist" candidate would be a spoiler. This is a Democratic blog, Bob is a Democrat, and so are the majority of the members of Democrats.com. If you wish to promote the "possibility" of a third-Party candidate, please do so elsewhere. And please spare us the "free speech" whine, as it does not apply to a private venue -- such as my living room, or a members-only blog.
Let's just agree to disagree, and stop trashing Bob's blog. There are many more Democratic issues at stake in the 2008 election than just NAFTA.
I am a Democrat too, always
I am a Democrat too, always have been and probably always will be. If you read my previous comment carefully, nowhere did I advocate voting third party. What I did do was take exception to your remarks that any third party candidate de facto deserves to be laughed at, as evidenced by Perot's being the butt of late-night corporate talk show hosts. What I do maintain, however, is that there may be cases where someone outside the two-party game may play a vital role to democracy by keeping the other two honest. If such a statement constitutes heresy here in your private blog, I will be happy not to "trash" it any further with my "free speech whining" and go to a forum somewhat less parochial than this one.
Robert
Hi,
I was enjoying this exchange and felt reasoned arguments were being advanced on both sides. It seemed to me that consensus might be reached. Now that it's moved to another topic I thought I'd put my 2 cents in.
I think the theoretical argument you advanced about a 3rd Party Candidate is similar to the "ticking time bomb" arguments:
Well clearly, in isolation of everything else, you can posit a theoretical argument about a 3rd Party Candidate for which we would all say YES. The key word here however is "isolation".
I think things become clearer if one notes that a third perspective is often needed to force debates away from simple negations: I believe X. I believe NOT X. I believe X. I believe NOT X. ad nauseum!
I would advance that the above is critical AND is what motivates "3rd Party" musings (other than fear). I would suggest however that it can come from within a Party as well as from without.
Considering how difficult it is for humans to reach consensus I look towards a revitalizing of the massive structure already built (the Democratic Party) rather than building from scratch.
Jim
Third-Parties are what you
Third-Parties are what you get when the "Free Press" shirks its responsibility to keep the two-Party system honest.
Unfortunately, third-Parties are mostly made up of extremists with a narrow "throw out the baby with the bathwater" agenda.
Very good point Bill as I
Very good point Bill as I forgot about the Press.
Seriously.
Now how did I forget that the Press was to offer the 3rd perspective?
How life would be different...
A fourth Third Party
We Progressives might be the third party, who needs another one? At least that's how it feels sometimes when the neocons and DLC Democrats battle for control and we try to elbow our way into the mix, like Kucinich trying to get a word in at a debate. Hillary may indeed be the nominee, and I may vote for her, but I will have no illusions whatsoever that she represents me or us. I would vote against any Republican, even if it was Honest Abe.
Sorry you're factually wrong
Unfortunately that's another falsehood. She DID disclose her position, immediately after her brief quip. Here is her full response from the transcript.
Now I'm not taking a position whether I LIKE her answer or not. I'm just pointing out that she DID answer the question - she did NOT treat it with contempt.
Sirota vs Hilary
Duckman51
Let's get one thing straight and get this straight right now. Hilary will be the Democratic candidate for the president of the United States - PERIOD.
With that said, I find the fact that the Democratic Party, right now, is the only political alternative to what is slithering around the country on the other side. Do we need a FDR or JFK? You bethcha! Are we going to get one? Not in one person. Then what are we as Americans to do? We scrutinize and question each of the candidates, not assassinate them!
And what would the results be if self-righteous individuals manage to beat up on a moderate/conservative be? YOU'D GET IL DUCE RUDY!
Now all of you intellectual idiots have a nice evening dreaming about what part of the world you'll be able to go or send your children to, to escape the next war. Pleasant dreams.
Howard
You just shoved MORE folks into a 3rd Party.
1-Folks fear how far Right the Democrat is. This leads them to ponder jumping ship to a 3rd Party.
2-You fear how far Right the Democratic challenger is. This leads you to demand NOTHING of the Democrat. They can move further Right with impunity as far as your vote is concerned.
Demand nothing and they move to the Right. This scares more type 1 folks to leave the Party. It also leaves the Party not unlike the one you fear.
There is another way besides insulting people and demanding nothing. Please don't offer that you DO demand something of the Democrat, as you would not be so rude to those who are giving Hillary a hard time if you did.
Who said Hillary was
Who said Hillary was polarizing? Must have been some "intellectual."
A poor rich man, an idiot
A poor rich man, an idiot intellectual, and a guy in lederhosen walk into a bar...
Rove, Dubya, and Cheney...?
Rove, Dubya, and Cheney...?
;)
Bob Fertik said: So this
Bob Fertik said: So this time around I'm going to do everything in my power to stop lies and smears about Democratic candidates dead in their tracks.
------------------
Bravo for you! Yes, the CNN transcript shows Hillary making a long serious statement about NAFTA. Her 'charts' remark was clearly about Perot, not about the issue. What a dishonest smear!
About strategy in general ...
At this point, because of vote fraud the only way the Dems can actually get in is with a large majority. Let's nominate a proven winner who can get that large majority (and has the resources to fight vote fraud if there is any). Let her clean up the vote fraud and make it safe for more extreme Dems to win later.