What a Night!

This is what I "hoped" for. The dimensions of Barack Obama's victory in South Carolina are astonishing. The numbers are mind-boggling. He got more than twice the votes as the second place finisher, Hillary Clinton. He was the first candidate in a contested primary to win over half the total votes--55%.

The sheer number of votes also reflects the number of voters he inspired to the polls. The turnout was huge, and in a state with a much higher number of registered Republicans than Democrats, Obama alone got more than the combined votes that John McCain and Mike Huckabee got in their S.C. primary last week. Obama's vote total alone was greater than the total of all votes in the 2004 Democratic SC primary.

He got 4/5 of African American voters, and he was even with the others among white men, winning about a quarter of the total white vote. He won most age groups and income groups, and he won young voters overwhelmingly, including more than half of the white voters under 30.

The exit polling was replete with revelations. Voters essentially repudiated the Billary attack strategy. They found Obama the most electable in November, and they wanted change more than anything else. But they also rated him first on how to handle the economy and foreign policy.

Once again Obama rose to the occasion in his victory speech.:

The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.It's about the past versus the future.

It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

With a vision like that, is it any wonder that Caroline Kennedy is endorsing Barack Obama in a Sunday New York Times op ed (obviously written before the South Carolina results) entitled A President Like My Father:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible. We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama."

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Also published Sunday, though written earlier, the San Francisco Chronicle endorses Obama.:

America deserves better than these cycles of vengeance and retribution. Its possibilities are too great, its challenges too daunting, for partisan pettiness.

In a Jan. 17 meeting with our editorial board, Obama demonstrated an impressive command of a wide variety of issues. He listened intently to the questions. He responded with substance. He did not control a format without a stopwatch on answers or constraints on follow-up questions, yet he flourished in it.He radiated the sense of possibility that has attracted the votes of independents and tapped into the idealism of young people during this campaign. He exuded the aura of a 46-year-old leader who could once again persuade the best and the brightest to forestall or pause their grand professional goals to serve in his administration.

Of all the candidates who talk about change, Barack Obama has made the case most forcefully and most convincingly. He gets our endorsement for the Democratic nomination.

Obama is also being endorsed today by the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and St. Louis Post Dispatch.

But response is also coming in already to Obama's South Carolina victory--to the tune of half a million dollars an hour in online donations.

The response to Obama on television was weird--because not only the liberal commentators but the conservative ones--Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan--were praising him, and Joe Scarborough couldn't get over the text messages supporting Obama he was getting from conservative Republicans as well as liberal Democrats.

As for where the campaing goes and how Obama positioned himself in his politically brilliant as well as transformationally inspiring victory speech, I thought this comment by blogger Todd Beeton on MYdd was incisive: "Obama's speech is making clear how the Clintons' tactics this week really may have backfired on them: they played into the need for what Barack Obama offers, this sort of "new kind of politics" that until this week, was an amorphous concept. Obama doesn't even have to say "see what I mean, this is what I've been talking about" but it's the subtext of this speech. Hillary Clinton managed to seal the image of herself as the poster child for business as usual politics and played perfectly into Obama's hand. The question is will this fall-out spread throughout the country? Certainly the media, if MSNBC is any indication, is pitted against the Clintons on this score right now."

In fact it is hard to see what the Clintons do now. Bill has already tried to spin South Carolina as a racial victory, but that's not going down well. Their post-Iowa strategy of distortions has seemingly backfired, and at least has been exposed. Apparently Billary expected to lose, since neither remained in South Carolina, but the dimensions of this victory must have stunned them. Hillary gave a graceless concession of two seconds, and went into her stump speech, her voice noticeably tense. John Edwards, who got just under 20% of the vote, was his usual graceless self on election night, but this time he at least congratulated Obama in a sentence before launching into stories he's told before. Neither mentioned the victory for the Democratic party in this incredible turnout in a southern state. That so many African Americans voted is historic in itself.

All that's left for the Clintons is political infighting, back room stuff, strong-arming local party structures and unions. Obama warned his supporters that there is struggle ahead, at least for delegates. Mark J at MYdd makes the case for Clinton still having an advantage, because of her national lead.

But this victory could signal the flood of response I had hoped would come after New Hampshire, if Obama had won there. Now it might even be bigger, because Obama has weathered the worst the Clintons could throw at him (well, I'm sure they can be worse, and will be) and people have come out admiring him all the more. Remember, those endorsements came before these results were known. If this truly becomes a flood reflected in endorsements and poll numbers over the next ten days, then Obama has a great chance to be nominated. In fact, the nightmare for the Democratic Party is for Billary to win narrowly through political machinations, and stuff like counting her delegates in Michigan and Florida when Obama honored the party's de-certification and didn't have his name on the ballot. Then we're back in Bush v. Goreland.

I'm liking Obama's chances on February 5, and I am especially looking forward to the prospect of winning California. It's within reach. No, it won't be easy. But yes, we can.

Pre-Spinning South Carolina

I'm not going to quote polls because they've proven unreliable in the recent past, but they do affect expectations. Barack Obama is expected to win the South Carolina primary today. But what will he win? It depends in part on perception.

Clearly if Obama doesn't win, it hurts him greatly going into Tsuami Tuesday. But if people are buying Bill Clinton's latest pre-spin--and some of the media clearly are--then the margin of his victory doesn't matter as much as the percentage of the white vote he gets. In past primaries and caucuses, where the proportion of black voters in the state was lower, he got 35-37%. How will his percentage in South Carolina be judged? Now that it's officially a three-person contest, what percentage will signal that he can win enough white votes to not be ghettoized as the black candidate?

In this article, political scientists disagree on what the proportions will mean. At least one believes the Clintons are counting on marginalizing Obama as the black candidate: "There is a substantial residual of race-related fear, and President Clinton's frequent invocation of race/gender differences is tapping into it. Iowa and New Hampshire did not have the demographics to tempt Obama's opponents to play to racial identity, but from here on the demographics for this style of campaigning are very seductive. I look for continued hints, then denials and high road talk, then hints, etc."

The South Carolina results may answer a couple of race-related questions: how much do black voters believe that the Clintons are playing the race card, and how much do they resent it? And given Obama's race-neutral campaign, will white Democrats erase this issue by voting for Obama in at least the same percentage they did elsewhere?

Some polls show John Edwards (who won this primary in 2004) surging, largely from white voters, although some polls suggest he is taking votes from Obama, and others from Clinton. There's even the suggestion that if the Edwards surge continued Friday, that he could come in second, which would be a major embarrassment for Hillary (assuming she doesn't come in first.)

Another element to watch for is the extent of the turnout, which South Carolina Democrats believe will be record-breaking. That adds even more uncertainty to the outcomes.

Obama did a couple of smart things in the last few days of the campaign: he concentrated more on women voters, and he talked economics. There's always a bit of a lag between what gets reported locally or statewide and what gets reported nationally, especially when everybody is so focused on Bill Clinton. But if Obama got through to voters, he could be sealing the deal with undecideds.

At this point I'm way too not objective to be confident in what I'm sensing at this distance. All I can say is I'm "hoping" for a big--a really big--Obama victory.

That would mean that Obama and Hillary would go into Tsunami Tuesday more equally matched, with Hillary's recent momentum blunted. As was discussed on Keith Friday, the math is such that no candidate is going to come out of TT's round of primaries with enough delegates to claim the nomination. But the expectations game could mean the momentum game again. But first things first: South Carolina Democrats vote today.

Back and Forth Lash

A Washington Post story followed up on the unrest being caused by the Billary distortions:

Harpootlian, a prominent voice in South Carolina politics and a onetime Clinton supporter, said the Clintons' recent tactics have been "all about deceit."
"This is harmful to the party, it's harmful to the state. And I understand they want to win, but this is about -- should be about -- a competition of ideas, not who can pull the hammer harder," he said.

For some rank-and-file Democrats, the tack against Obama is prompting a reevaluation of Clinton and her husband. Bill Clinton gained enormous popularity among Democrats in the 1990s partly because of his ability to achieve tactical triumphs over Republicans. Now, watching the use of rough-edged tactics against a fellow Democrat, some of those who supported him then are having second thoughts.

"They're obvious distortions," said Ralph Byrd, a retired electrical engineer in Greenville, S.C., who voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. "We've had enough spin in the White House the last eight years, and we don't need any more. It's deliberate distortion that we don't need."

And even in its editorial endorsing Hillary, the New York Times commented:

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

Joining the chorus is former Clinton Sec. of Labor Robert Reich, who begins a blog entry (jeez, he's uses a Blogger template just like me, except I'd never use that one):

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party.

Moreover, columnist E.J. Dionne recalled a moment when another candidate referred to Reagan kindly, and gave credit to his ideas, as Billary accuse Obama of doing. The candidate was Bill Clinton in 1991. "I have been thinking about that episode ever since Hillary Clinton's campaign started unloading on Barack Obama for making statements about Reagan that were, if anything, more measured than Bill Clinton's 1991 comments." Dionne writes in the Washington Post. "Obama's not particularly original insight was a central premise of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Clinton argued over and over that Democrats could not win without new ideas of their own."

After joining in the criticism of Billary for distortion and division, Dionne puts the whole charge in the proper perspective: And with both Clintons on record saying kind things about Reagan, why go after Obama on the point? Honestly: If Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander. "

Now as the voting day comes nearer in South Carolina, the Clinton campaign has withdrawn their latest attack radio ad, and the Obama campaign has withdrawn its response. But that often happens this close to voting, and doesn't mean much for the future. They called one truce, after all, and Billary broke it immediately. I wonder however if those scurrilous direct mails are going out again, accusing Obama of being weak on choice. Hillary's hope in SC is women, and also in siphoning off enough African Americans (now largely for Obama) and white voters (now splitting for Edwards) with appeals like the new radio ad featuring Bill Clinton, talking about the good economic times when he was President, and saying Hillary will do it again. This is their ultimate argument and could move some undecideds their way--if Bill has any credibility left.

Who's your wonk? Speaking of the economy, Congress and the Smirk agreed on a quick economic stimulus package Thursday which more closely resembles the proposal Barack Obama made a couple of weeks ago than Hillary's, although by the time the package was being negotiated, Hillary had come around to Obama's position on rebates. Obama said that the package should have included extension of unemployment benefits, which he also proposed.


Who's your GOPer? I didn't watch the Republican debate--I saw a moving performance by talented high school kids of Arthur Miller's The Crucible instead. But I did see some of the MSNBC pundits afterwards, and they thought Romney won the debate, hands down. Elsewhere on the web I've seen similar opinions, though Hotline thought McCain did well but so did Romney. Apparently they all mention Hillary many times. The MSNBCers talked about how Romney is running as an outsider, so much like GOPer Obama that he used one of Barack's signature lines. (But then Hillary does that, too, and now Obama has begun talking about being ready on Day One, Hillary's big deal.) They see Romney as drawing a sharp contrast with Hillary and maybe winning. Somebody said that Democrats seeing how enthused the GOPers are to run against Hillary--it helps them raise money for one thing--that this helps Obama.
(Interesting that MSNBC had Chris Matthews running the post-debate show without Keith, and that Keith will pair with somebody else for the South Carolina primary coverage, and will do the next Dem debate by himself.)

Anyway, it does seem that if Romney wins Florida, he is likely to win the GOPer nomination. Nobody gives Rudy a chance anymore, and McCain is already having money troubles, so it's hard to see how he remains competitive on Tsunami Tuesday if he doesn't win Florida. Even then he has to hope for a big cash infusion. This is apparently not just his problem, but a problem for all Republicans--the enthusiasm to contribute to their campaigns just isn't there. Which is why Romney could still win it all.

The Backlash Continues--and Extends to Gender

The backlash against the Billary distortions of Barack Obama's statements and record continue--even as those distortions continue, with a Clinton ad in South Carolina that repeats what various commentators are calling simply a lie: that Obama praised the good ideas of Reaganistic Republicans. Latest to weigh in is the non-partisan factcheck.org, which also details this Clintonian distortion.

But a little noticed distortion by the Clinton campaign that apparently was effective in turning women voters away from Obama in New Hampshire is now being exposed--and causing its own backlash. The Clintons got what the Washington Post describes as "two dozen" prominent women to sign an open letter faulting Obama for being "soft on abortion rights." Now three of those same women have issued another letter proclaiming that Obama is "strongly pro choice," and one of the signers--Katie Wheeler, a former state senator--has called out the Clinton campaign for misleading her and issuing this lie:

"It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice," said Wheeler, a founder of the New Hampshire chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."

On the heels of this comes a video now on YouTube made by Lorna Brett Howard, former President of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization of Women, where she also worked with Planned Parenthouse, and she is currently on the board and the political action committee of a large pro-choice organization in New York. She has personal knowledge of Obama's strong pro-choice record in Illinois, and says that later when the call went out to U.S. Senators to help fight against the South Dakota legislation to criminalize abortions, only one Senator answered the call and helped: not HC of New York, but Barack Obama.

What makes this statement powerful at this moment is that she was a Hillary supporter, who says she witnessed Hillary falsely telling women in Iowa that Obama was weak on choice as a state senator, when Howard knew for a fact he wasn't from having worked with him at the time, and then she was shown a direct mail piece from the Clinton campaign making the same charges in New Hampshire. At that point she switched her support from Hillary to Obama. "This line of attack on an issue I care about so deeply is not acceptable to me," Howard said. She ends her video statements with the words: "Barack Obama, 100% pro-choice, 100% honest."

The apparent basis for the Clinton claims has to do with votes in the Illinois state legislature when Obama voted "present" on bills concerning choice. But this claim has long been known to be specious--I saw it debunked at least three months ago-- and was fact-checked once again today.

In South Carolina, Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic party chairman in that state and friend of Billary, said recent distortions by the Clintons are "reprehensible." Asked to respond, Bill Clinton blamed the media and the Obama campaign. Bill is alone in the state at the moment, as Hill campaigns elsewhere. He is already spinning the outcome as being about race.

Meanwhile, the Political Wire suggests it knows what Hillary and Edwards talked about at their post-debate meet: Hillary told him she has more dirt on Obama.

Among the GOPers, the Wire reports that not just the Huckabee campaign but the two-primary winner John McCain's campaign is having money problems, while the cash-strapped Rudy may be in free fall in Florida. That leaves Romney as the man with the moolah to sustain a campaign. A couple of polls have Romney and McCain fighting for the lead in Florida. So John Edwards annointing McCain as the GOPer nominee may be as accurate as his assessment of who the Dem nominee will be. (But one poll suggests Edwards is climbing in South Carolina, and may be in striking distance of finishing second.)

Gov. Ed Rendell of PA endorsed Hillary, while two other South Carolina newspapers and the New York Observer endorsed Obama:

New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America. ...

It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has. Partly as a result of his candidacy, college campuses have remembered why they are proud of the United States, kids are going door to door, runners are handing out leaflets on weekends, racial lines have been culturally melted and the electoral approach to presidential campaigning has been reborn.

And, as more than one commentator has said, America is being reintroduced to the world. Because of who he is and what he stands for, a former constitutional law teacher with few ties to the Washington establishment yet a sophisticated respect for it, Mr. Obama stands the best chance of restoring the essential relationship between power and the American people. He is not flanked and blocked by an existing, entrenched power structure; his words are not muddied by layers of handlers; he still says what he means.

Backlash

The Billary attacks on Obama are receiving a backlash in several areas. It seems a long time ago now that the other Senator from Illinois referred to those attacks as "swiftboating." Now the man who was the target of the Swift Boat attacks, John Kerry, has characterized such attacks the same way.

This story leading with the Kerry email also cites a couple of journalists calling out the Clintons: On Tuesday, ABC News' Jake Tapper reported that Bill Clinton has been "spreading demonstrably false information," while Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn provided a rare conclusion for the political press: "Bill and Hillary Clinton have lied brazenly about Obama's recent statement about Ronald Reagan." Here's a link to Zorn's column. These weren't the only ones.

Obama himself suggests in an interview that the emails Obama was asked about in a debate--suggesting he is really a Muslim, etc.--are part of a "systematic political strategy," although he says he does not know who is behind it. The Obama campaign announced a South Carolina truth squad to combat distortions.

For what it's worth, a sampling of online comments plus live reaction suggests to me that the backlash has gone beyond politicians and the media. The Billary tactics are reminding people of the bitter divisions and sniping of the 90s involving the Clintons. It's tapping into the "shrill Hill" as a polarizing figure identity that was a major problem for her earlier. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in South Carolina, and whether it gets enough traction to affect the final few polls in the Tsunami Tuesday states.

Other news affecting the campaign: Fred Thompson dropped out of the GOPer race without endorsing anyone yet. And in the realm of maybe important, maybe not, a report that after yesterday's debate, Hillary had a brief closed door meeting with John Edwards.

South Carolina's largest newspaper, The State, endorsed Obama. The editorial said in part:

The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.

Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.

Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.

Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.

He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America’s moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.
Despite America’s bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.

And America certainly has things to get done. From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.

He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary.

Debate Reaction Without A Single Boxing Metaphor

Tonight's Democratic debate was about as schzoid as is possible, and reflects the impossible situation of these candidates: none can fail to respond to attacks, yet they cannot appear mean, defensive or negative; to regain advantage, candidates feel it necessary to attack candidates doing better, but again they can lose more than they gain by appearing mean, dishonest, embittered or unfair.

The first part of the debate featured attacks and counterattacks, either fresh or reinterated from the campaign trail. Most of these were between Hillary (the official representative of Billary) and Obama, but Edwards chimed in, most often attacking Obama. Much of the second half, when they were all seated, was as conciliatory as the standing half was confrontational. Weird, but I'm sure CNN is pleased: good TV, by their dubious standards.

John Edwards had a good debate, at least in talking about the issues and his positions. He did himself no favors piling on in what he should know is the spurious issue of Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, and I thought Obama explained how that works there pretty well--it's a way to signal support for a bill but dissatisfaction with one of its provisions, special if not unique to that legislature. When Hillary raised this, Obama countered her very well, since she made the mistake of mentioning that he voted "present" on a bill which he had in fact sponsored. If these folks are actually grownups, they'll stop using what they know is bullshit just because it sounds good.

Hillary had good moments articulating her positions, as did Obama. But when Hillary was attacking, she went too far--she was hissed by the crowd. We all have our immediate post-debate opinions and it will take a few days (or even until after the primary) for the Conventional Wisdom on this debate to be sorted out, but I have a feeling that these attacks are going to rebound on Hillary. Obama probably did himself good in South Carolina at least by defending himself well. He may also have blunted the Clintons double-teaming by calling out the ex-Prez, and saying pointedly that he wasn't always sure which Clinton he's running against.

If the Clintons have been successful in making this a black/white race, then Obama won't gain much by winning South Carolina, as he is expected to do because of the presumed majority African American participation in the primary. But on any account, if he loses it would be very bad for his prospects.

If all the chatter coming out of South Carolina is about race, and unless the Clintons do or say something that really screws them during the pre-TT week, there won't be time for any emphasis on Hillary to develop. The backlash against her, if there is one, may not be obvious in the South Carolina voting. And contrary to the New Hampshire primary, voters in those other states are likely to be influenced by polls, which mostly show Hillary ahead.

Some people online who are more directly aware of visual imagery said that Obama looked presidential. There were times he looked and sounded like the only grown up in the room. He did look uncomfortable in the middle of those attacks, but I'm not sure that hurts him. His balancing act was to defend himself without losing his emphasis on vision, and he kept making a point that seemed lost on commentators but I don't think will be lost on voters: that being honest in a campaign is important, because it shows you will govern honestly.

I've been known to give people too much credit for the ability to see through spurious and scurrilous attacks, and maybe I'm being naive about it now. But unless you are prepared to believe that Obama would fail to commit himself on a bill he sponsored to protect children against violence, you have to see Hillary's attack as beneath contempt. And if you do believe it, I don't think I'm the one who is naive.

Both Cops Now


At Dr. Martin Luther King's Church on Sunday, Barack Obama emphasized King's call for unity:

"If Dr. King could love his jailer, if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds and erase the empathy deficit that exist in our hearts," Obama said.

But that doesn't mean he's going to stay silent when his opponents are lying about him.

“You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling,” Obama told ABC’s “Good Morning America” in an interview taped Sunday and set to air Monday. “He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts — whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate.”