Carly Fiorina Keeps Digging a Hole She Never Should Have Started

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Over at Vox, Sarah Kliff asks the Fiorina campaign to back up Carly’s claim that the Planned Parenthood sting videos show “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” On the first try, they emailed her a YouTube video that doesn’t show any legs kicking and isn’t one of the sting videos anyway. So Kliff asked again. On the second try, they did send her one of the sting videos, but it also doesn’t show any legs kicking or hearts beating. There’s a former organ harvester on the video who claims to have seen this, but no actual footage to prove it. As Kliff says, “there’s no moment to ‘watch,’ as Fiorina urged debate viewers.”

But here’s an interesting thing. A long time ago I posted my personal guideline for gauging how misleading a statement is. I can’t dig it up at the moment, but it was basically this: How easy is to fix the offending statement? And how badly does this change its meaning? If it’s easy and doesn’t change much, then it’s not really all that misleading.

So let’s try that with Carly. Here it is, with my additions in italics: “I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a former organ harvester describe a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

I hate to say it, but that’s a pretty easy change, and it doesn’t change the impact of her statement very much. This kinda kills me, but I have to conclude that although Fiorina’s statement is clearly wrong, it’s only mildly misleading. She should have just gone with the more accurate version in the first place. She wouldn’t be in hot water now, and it wouldn’t have weakened her debate statement by more than a smidgen. Unfortunately, not only did she not do this, but she doubled down the next day by assuring George Stephanopoulos that she had seen the “images” she talked about.

Bad move, Carly. You just made a bad situation worse even though there was no need to do it. But I guess that’s no surprise. I gather this is one of your signature MOs.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest