The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Don't forget all the lying he did when he was a trial lawyer. He made his millions by lying.

Are you the editor's son-in-law?

Seriously, are you the editor's son-in-law because this column is consistently analytically frustrating, i.e. a complete waste of space. You ignore Bush's big whoppers in favor of a few nits to pick of the everybody knows it is an opinion statement. If you want to go for it, go for Bush. At least he unequivocally, if you can make out a complete thought, misleads. Start with Iran's nuclear capacity, what was said and when he said it.

you have a typo. Read carefully and "skeptically" too.

Jobs lost means jobs lost. The fact that many or most of those "displaced" workers eventually found other employment doesn't make that statement a fib. Who's checking your facts?

Mr. Edwards' choicest whopper was his assertion that he spent a lengthy period affiliated with the huge Fortress hedge fund in order to study the poor.

Mr. Edwards' choicest whopper was his assertion that he spent a lengthy period affiliated with the huge Fortress hedge fund in order to study the poor.

The WaPo's biggest whopper is that this is a factchecking column. If that were so, the daily subject would be the serial liars subverting the Constitution from the White House, Bush and Cheney. (Today's whopper is reported in the NYTimes: Some mid-level attorney approved the destruction of the CIA torture tapes. Right....) Instead it is used to nitpick anyone not on the neocon Christmas card list.

Only a well-off Washington journalist would say that the difference between a well-paid job with benefits and an $8 an hour job with no benefits is not a job loss. Ask the person trying to support a family on Walmart wages.

The purpose of this column is to analyze statements by "political candidates, interest groups, and the media," which eliminates Bush and Cheney. Geez, people, get with the program!

I'll bet fact checker isn't well-off at all. journalists make notoriously little.

I don't know why I even bother to read this column. For example, it considers "The claim that he is the "most electable" Democratic candidate" an exaggeration or a fib. Really, were you that desperate for material for this column? Clinton, Edwards and Obama all think they're "most electable." How is this a fib or exaggeration?

Yank this column. It really hasn't met any of the expectations set for it.

Hyperbole is not always lying. Edwards claim about Millions of jobs is possible, when one counts a stagnant economy and one talks about quality of work. If a good job is lost (say a factory job) and a bad job gained (say cleaning streets at the mall) the net exchange is negative for workers even if the statistics show a null. Some Statistics show the exchange that way.

The so called "facts" offered by both are opinions backed by numbers.

to the anonymous commenter at 9:09 a.m. Are you really suggesting that Michael Dobbs who has been employed by the Washington Post since 1980, is not being paid well? I call fact check on you.

You are ignoring the human aspect. When people or jobs are "displaced" then people lost those jobs. It is use that minces words in order to create a fib that isn't even a fib. It was a direct reading according to your own article. You counter the statistics with a report from the Department of Labor, since when has the department of labor given an accurate employement statistic? The cannot even accurately report how many people have or do not have jobs they depend on people coming to them and reporting. Your title is a lie.

As a rookie journalist, I love reading this column. Dobbs is really doing his homework. And as for the "go for Bush first" claim, I think that what Dobbs is doing is important for the political process -- he's trying to keep candidates honest, which takes some of the spin out of their campaigns.

I like seeing where and how he checked the facts.

As for the whole "check Bush" thing, I think it's fine for Dobbs to check up on intermediate liars -- asking him to check up only on Bush is like asking scientists to only research a cure for cancer(?) because it's the leading cause of death in America.

To start - I'm personally voting for JOE BIDEN who the Washington Post doesn't even mention as a candidate!!

John Edwards may be a liar, but this article is not convincing at all. It looks like it was written by Sean Hannity and reeks of bias and bad arguments. Nafta is a complex issue, and you do about as well promoting it as John Edwards does attacking it. Does that make you a liar? It's all just bickering about statistics, which all depends on where you got the statistics. Statistics are the bread and butter of true liars, and I'd rather shift the discussion to specifics, problems and solutions. Why are medical products made right here in the states so much cheaper to buy in Canada? Why are foreign car companies using more American factories while all of my "American car" parts are made in Mexico? What about farm subsidies? China alone is a discussion area, but jobs lost and jobs created and jobs displaced alone and it's Nafta's fault or no it's normal economics does not tackle the meat of the issue. I know some idiot out there is looking at the trade gains from the plummeting dollar and using it to pat Nafta on the back like they knew it all along.

He rubs me the wrong way too, but it defeats your argument to go on the attack in this way. It just makes your whole article look like partisan trash.

Rita,
I agree with you. Of the thousands of people I can imagine read this every day - you will always have the nut cases commenting re: above.

Truth: R u kidding about your screen name? Truth? That's quite presumptuous!

really? he made his millions as a trial lawyer by lying?!? i could have sworn he made those millions by exposing the lies of corporations who put a few cents of profit over the lives and well-being of consumers. guess i must be mistaken. then again--no way. it was definitely off of greedy corporations who put greed ahead of people.

Looks like Edwards' assertion that he is the most electable Democratic candidate is born out by a new CNN/Opinion Research poll. According to the story:

"On the Democratic side, Edwards performs best against each of the leading Republicans. In addition to beating Huckabee by 25 percent and McCain by 8 percent, the North Carolina Democrat beats Romney by 22 percentage points (59 percent to 37 percent) and Giuliani by 9 percentage points (53 percent to 44 percent)."

So NO Pinocchios on that one, folks.

In reply to Thomas, I am neither attacking nor "promoting" NAFTA in this post Whether NAFTA is good for the U.S. is a complicated subject beyond the scope of this Fact Check. I am merely saying that Edwards can not produce a credible economic study to show that NAFTA has cost "millions of American jobs."
Incidentally, I will be having a live-on line discussion at 12 a.m. Wednesday, and you are free to go at me then. Look forward to your questions and comments.

One of the (sometimes) valid criticisms the left has of the right is that the right occasionally gets too easy a pass from the media on big national policy issues (e.g., the overly-hyped build-up to war). What shocks me is that these same people on the left scream bloody murder and "go after Bush-Cheney instead" when the media turns its focus on the left even a little. Ignoring the hypocracy and foibles of Democrats does the country no more good than ignoring the hypocracy and foibles of Republicans.

Reading comments from Democrats over the last several months, I've come to the conclusion that they can dish out the critical thinking just fine, but they can't take it from anyone but their own.

I give the Fact Checker three pinocchios for his analysis. If I lose an apple and find an orange, I have still lost an apple. If I lose a job and find another one, I have still lost a job. That's the fact.

I'm surprised that Fact Checker couldn't come up with some statements from Edwards that aren't a little more questionable. Unlike the Rudy's, Mitt's, and others' outright untruths, Edwards appears to be guilty only of hyperbole. Since when have political candidates been disallowed hyperbole? Politics runs on it.

At least you could have updated the "most electable candidate" fact check. As it turns out, Edwards could be considered a visionary given the latest CNN poll. Fact check that. And I agree, enough twisting the meaning of words. Displaced means Americans lost those jobs to people overseas.

The issue with this "fact" is the one-sidedness of the assertion that NAFTA cost "us" (Unions? Whole US? Dem voters?) millions of jobs. Every year millions of people quit their jobs, take new jobs, are fired, etc., and millions of people are hired into new jobs. The real analysis of the impact of NAFTA must consider jobs gained as a result of NAFTA before making an assessment as to whether it was a good thing or not on balance, which would include the benefits of closer commercial ties with neighbors, etc. By attempting to strip the argument down to one aspect of the economic picture, the candidate is guilty of cynical opportunism and dumbing down.

You're accusing Edwards of dumbing down his rhetoric to a nation that allowed GW Bush to occupy the White House for TWO terms? Maybe he isn't dumbing down enough.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.