Ledgermain From The Clinton Campaign

Hillary Clinton's first negative contrast ad against Barack Obama in South Carolina is a masterful example of creative ledgermain.

The claim that Barack Obama praised Republican ideas or, in Clinton's words, found them "better" than Democratic ideas -- that is, the ideas themselves -- is false. Obama, in a meeting with a Reno editorial board, said that Republicans pushed new ideas to the the fore while Democrats were largely silent. That is, he praised Republicans for coming up new ideas. Nowhere did he say he preferred those ideas.

Now, it's perfectly plausible to contest the claim that Republicans came up with new ideas while Democrats didn't. But that's not the direction the Clinton campaign wanted to go.

The Clinton campaign knows it that if they repeated the claim that Obama just loved those ol' Republican ideas, they'd be lying.

So here is the script of their new radio ad:

VO: “Listen to Barack Obama last week talking about Republicans.

BO: “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.”

VO: “Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?”

BO: “The Republicans were the party of ideas.”

VO: Hillary Clinton thinks this election is about replacing disastrous Republican ideas with new ones, like jumpstarting the economy. Putting an immediate freeze on foreclosures and mortgages. Cutting taxes for the middle class. and creating millions of new jobs. With the economy in crisis, we need a president with the ideas, the solutions that get america working for all of us. Hillary Clinton. Solutions for America.

The ad implies -- but does not say -- that Obama valued the ideas themselves. It implies, but does not say -- that he was praising Republican solutions. In doing so, the ad distorts the context of what Obama said without explicitly repeating the falsehood itself.

Criss Angel would admire the sleight of hand...

Comments

I'm shocked, shocked, to find politics being practiced in this establishment.

Posted by southpaw | January 23, 2008 3:22 PM

And we can count of the media to call this ad too-clever-by-half and objectively misleading.

Right?

Right?

You guys always fall for the Clintons' crap.

Posted by betty in baltimore | January 23, 2008 3:26 PM

I'm not sure why none of the Democratic candidates who are supporting healthcare reform are not supporting the repeal of the portion or ERISA that allows insurance companies very limited liability when they are denied benefits.

For example, if your insurance company covers people nationally, then if you are denied care and you are injured as a result of that care, ERISA only allows damages that are based on the cost of the procedure and no punitive damages.

Everyone should be really concerned because insurance companies can continue to get away with denying care.

Posted by ERISA | January 23, 2008 3:36 PM

There word is legerdemain. I remember b/c I had to look it up when you used the correct spelling in a previous post.

Posted by Trizzle | January 23, 2008 3:43 PM

The Clintons are doing to Barack Obama what the Republicans did to Al Gore in 2000.

Did Al Gore say he invented the internet, discovered Love Canal and the rest? No. It was just a pack of lies and distortions. The Republicans touted them and the lazy media repeated them. It was a lesson and a tactic the Clintons learned all too well ...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore

In the end all those years of abuse by Republicans taught the Clintons just one thing: how to be abusers themselves.

Posted by Callimaco | January 23, 2008 3:43 PM

It seemed pretty clear to me that Obama was trying to contrast the Reagan years (good) with the Clinton years (not so good). You can tear all your tendons in some sort of Twister Game to try to get around that, but it changes nothing.

I think Obama just let the Clintons get to him, and lost his cool. Same, same at the S.C. debate. Barack got personal, leaving an opening for Hillary to bludgeon him with the Tony Rezko affair. Take a look at the newspapers, no one is talking about Wal Mart, (most people shop there anyway), everyone is talking about Rezko.

Then there was Obama's convoluted answers, and hesitant, fuzzy thought processes at the debate. That was a killer. He reminded me of the answer a former Miss South Carolina gave at a Beauty Contest awhile back. The rambling, nonsensical "the Iraq" babble that Jim Rome loves to replay over and over, when he is feeling particularly nasty. Which is most of the time ;)

Posted by robert ethan | January 23, 2008 3:49 PM

I find your analysis misleading and dishonest. You are trying to read intent into Barack Obama's words that are not there. In seeking the endorsement of a conservative editorial board Obama chose to use false republican talking points saying:

".. the republicans were the party of ideas....they challenged conventional wisdom."

If Barack Obama did not mean to give a favorable nod to 'republican ideas' he could have said he found republican ideas repugnant.

But then he may not have gotten the endorsement of the conservatives he was auditioning for.

Posted by ken | January 23, 2008 3:51 PM

taken on the whole, this ad is a lie.

you need to step back from the traditional beltway logic that finds this shit cute. thats what i expect when i come here.

Posted by jhv | January 23, 2008 3:58 PM

Actually, it was pretty obvious to me that Obama was praising the Republican ideas for being against (Democratic?) conventional wisdom!

Posted by TN | January 23, 2008 4:00 PM

This makes me sick. Does HRC for one second believe Barack endorses those Republican ideas? No, of course not. But she knows that many people aren't as familiar with him, and if she defines him using distortion/lies, that is what they will believe. I hope he confronts her on this point.

Posted by WWNPHD | January 23, 2008 4:09 PM

I would like to ask the Hillary supporters in this comment tree whether they actually believe that Obama thinks that Republican ideas over the last 10-15 years have been *better* ideas and that he agreed with Reagan's policies. Obama has a consistently liberal voting record -- more liberal than HRC on a number of issues.

No person who doesn't already want to think ill of Senator Obama would see in his words what Bill and Hillary (and you) are claiming he put there.

Bill and Hillary are lying, plain and simple. Just in case you've forgotten what it means to lie, have a look at the Mirriam-Webster definition of the intransitive verb "to lie":
I agree.

The Mirriam-Webster definition of "lie, v. intransitive":

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

The second one seems to apply very aptly in this case, and I really can't see how you could in all conscience argue otherwise. I get it that you support Clinton -- that's fine. What I don't get is how you could *not* think that Bill and Hillary are lying about Obama on this issue. It's just plain logic.

Posted by Jack | January 23, 2008 4:48 PM

If Barack Obama did not mean to give a positive nod to republican ideas he did not have to say:

".. the republicans were the party of ideas....they challenged conventional wisdom."

Obama thinks that it is unfair that he can be held accountable for his remarks designed to win the approval of a conservative editorial board.

Hillary is teaching him a lesson. If he learns the lesson it will make him stronger. But right now he is demonstrating the fact he is just a rookie trying to play with the grown ups.

Posted by ken | January 23, 2008 4:54 PM

Gimme a break. You're saying that there is no value judgment implied in saying that the Republicans are "the party of ideas" who "challenged conventional wisdom."

That is totally absurd. What contrasts with "the party of new ideas?" Why, that would be "the party of no ideas" (or "old ideas.") What contrasts with "challenged conventional wisdom?" Why, that would be "accepted the status quo."

Since none of that implies any values, I guess you can just imagine someone giving this campaign speech:

My friends, I ask for you to vote for me over my opponent. While it is true that my opponent is the candidate of new ideas, remember that I have few ideas and the ones I have are old! And while my opponent challenges conventional wisdom, I boldly accept the status quo! If you want a politician with no ideas and no desire to change anything, vote for me!

Posted by Trickster | January 23, 2008 5:00 PM

You have to marvel at the Clintons for this one. They give up on SC, but run a radio ad there and then release it to the media.

Why? So you guys play it.

Free advertising. Well done Howard, well done.

Posted by Tom B. | January 23, 2008 5:12 PM

Jack
I get that you can read a dictionary but that doesn't mean they are lying or wrong. knowing the definition of a word doesn't link a person to it.
did Obama deny any of the specifics of what Bill said two weeks ago?

Obama foolishly thought he could pay lip service to the editorial board of a right wing Reno paper to get the endorsement and peel off republicans and independents without it dirtying his reputation with dems and the left.
He got the Reno endorsement But Hillary hung it around his neck in front of the ENTIRE black congressional caucus ON mlk Jr day on national tv with 4.9 million viewers: Obma's fault. He said they were the party of ideas when Clinton was president and when the entire Black congressional caucus was working with him.

Could Obama had been more stupid?!
Could Hillary have been more smart about when to call him on such nonsense.

But the Caucus was the only important audience for thier debate monday night. And they saw Obama squirm and go off the rails and they saw John Lewis laughing at Obama's getting knocked around.

Obama is trying to tag Bill that night for their benefit and his supporters were buying and Hillary's din't defect en masse did they?
Clymer did not come out the next day did he?

Obama gets to say what he wants and the rest of us can believe him or not: get over yourself.
Is he misunderstood again? isn't that what Hillary told us the other night?
Obama tried to turn it into the glowing stuff

Posted by Michael C. | January 23, 2008 5:23 PM

Boy there are a lot of Clinton trolls out today...

Posted by wj | January 24, 2008 1:12 PM

If Barack Obama did not mean to give a positive nod to republican ideas he did not have to say:

".. the republicans were the party of ideas....they challenged conventional wisdom."

Obama thinks that it is unfair that he can be held accountable for his remarks designed to win the approval of a conservative editorial board.

Hillary is teaching him a lesson. If he learns the lesson it will make him stronger. But right now he is demonstrating the fact he is just a rookie trying to play with the grown ups.

Posted by ken | January 23, 2008 4:54 PM

Hey Ken, you prove with your attempt to "quote" Obama that you are lying. You did exactly what the Clintons did in their ad. If you are telling the truth, why not include the entire quote?

Your use of ellipses, the three dots in between words, proves it. Ellipses are the tools of a liar. They allow you to pick out the parts of a quote you want and to leave out things that either change the meaning or add context. You, sir, by using ellipses, are a liar.

Literate people tend to read this blog. You aren't getting away with that kind of stuff around here. You can fool the low information, uneducated Clinton voter with it, but not here.

Posted by Pug | January 24, 2008 5:44 PM

Bush: "9/11...Saddam...9/11...Saddam9/11...Saddam9/11...Saddam..."

"I never said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I never said that."

Clinton: "Obama...Reagan's ideas...Obama...Reagan's ideas...Obama...Reagan's ideas..."

"I never said that Obama liked Reagan's ideas. I never said that."

Welcome to Hillary Country. Just like Marlboro Country, it's dishonest, poisonous and leaves a vile taste in your mouth, but it's callously effective at manipulating people into thinking it's the cool place to be.

Posted by NH Dem | January 24, 2008 5:44 PM