Here's a broad question: Why do politicians lie repeatedly make statements which can be proven as objectively false, right out in the open where people can debunk them?
I'm not talking about accidental confusion about geography or chronology -- I'm talking about the repetition of falsehoods.
For example, there's this article featured on the CBS News site today:
Clinton Casts Wide Net of Exaggeration, Claims to Lead in "Every Poll"
BILLINGS, MONT. -- During an evening rally in Montana’s largest city Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton explained to the crowd why she should be the Democratic Party’s nominee, but what ensued was a list of overstatements and exaggerations as she made her case. "You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall," she said.
The problem is, there are a number of polls that show Clinton in a close race with John McCain, many within the margin of error, not including a few that show Barack Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Clinton. The comment was intended to prove to voters that despite Obama’s popularity, she has what it takes to beat John McCain. Clinton said that voters have to ask themselves, "Who is the stronger candidate against John McCain? We have not gone through this exciting, unprecedented, historic election, only to lose," she said.
For days, Clinton has been grasping at almost anything to make her case to voters as the clock in the campaign winds down. Most recently Clinton compared the plight of Florida and Michigan voters to the struggles of the early suffragists and likened the primaries of those states to the fraudulent election that took place in Zimbabwe.
That kind of behavior is frightening. And, apparently, common. In fact, I only needed to flip over to the Huffington Post to find Scott McClellan's account of Bush convincing himself of his own PR:
In another section, McClellan describes Bush as able to convince himself of his own spin and relates a phone call he overheard Bush having during the 2000 campaign, in which he said he could not remember whether he had used cocaine. "I remember thinking to myself, 'How can that be?' " he writes.
Is this just a failure to understand how information and media has evolved? Is it megalomania? As my 2-year-old says, "What's the deal?"
Edited to add: I refuse to accept the placement of this diary on the Rec List, as it is an institution of the bourgeoisie. (Second edit: Thanks for the spelling correction! Sinclair Lewis would smack me around for sure if he had seen that.)